Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will help the House if hon. Members will speak up. We have no amplification this afternoon.

Mr. Gorst: On a point of order. Is it in order for hon. Members to bring firearms into the Chamber?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order for hon. Members to bring firearms into the Chamber.

Mr. Gorst: Are lighted candles permitted?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should read the history of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION SUPPLY

Rolls-Royce Ltd.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply when he expects to receive the report of the external accountants on Rolls-Royce.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the Government loan to Rolls-Royce.

The Minister of Aviation Supply (Mr. Frederick Corfield): I expect to receive

the accountant's report in the early part of next year. There is nothing to add at present to my previous statements about the additional launching aid which will be given to Rolls-Royce to enable it to complete development of the RB211–22 engine.—[Vol. 806, c. 398–407; Vol. 807, c. 149–58.]

Mr. Dalyell: Will it, perhaps understandably, be confidential?

Mr. Corfield: Yes. I do not anticipate for one moment that it will be appropriate to publish the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Sheldon: What will the Minister do if as a result of the accountant's report it is shown that more than the £42 million is required? Would the right hon. Gentleman come to the House and ask for a further increase in the loan?

Mr. Corfield: I would do what anyone else would do: consider the matter as it arises and not jump fences before reaching them.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is there any precedent for the Government refusing to publish accountants' reports on matters which involve the investment of large sums of public funds? How are we to judge whether the further investment in Rolls-Royce is indeed justified if we are debarred from close scrutiny of the professional accountant's report?

Mr. Corfield: The accountant's report will go into far greater detail than the question to which my hon. Friend refers. When it is available I shall consider what information from it is appropriate to be disclosed in relation to this problem.

Mr. Barnett: Will the Minister confirm that, whatever the accountant's report discloses, the amount which he has already informed this House that the Government will invest will still be invested?

Mr. Corfield: Yes. I think that that is a glimpse of the obvious.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the amplification has been restored. Hon. Members will still do well to speak up.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether


he will publish the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation's Report on Rolls-Royce.

Mr. Corfield: The report is a confidential document which it would be quite improper to publish.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that before the last debate on Rolls-Royce that company, despite receiving £89 million of the taxpayers' money, circulated absolutely no information to hon. Members about its affairs? Will he make sure that in future companies in receipt of huge sums of public money are forced to make the facts and figures available to this House?

Mr. Corfield: This is a most important aspect and one which I am considering very closely in relation to the terms of the contract that will govern the launching aid which I mentioned in my statement.

Mr. Bishop: Will not the right hon. Gentleman admit that his policy has not saved Rolls-Royce but has merely propped it up a little? Would he agree that the substitution of civil servants, able though they are—nevertheless derided by some of his hon. Friends—is no substitute for the I.R.C., particularly at this critical stage of relationships with Rolls-Royce?

Mr. Corfield: I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I have said previously—that the I.R.C. was not designed primarily for this sort of exercise and that it had considerable defects because of its inability to carry out this type of investigation. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to what his right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said during the discussion of the Industrial Expansion Bill, he will see these words:
Schemes under the Bill, just like work done by the I.R.C, would be of such a nature that the tightest security would be necessary on commercial and financial grounds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st Feb., 1968; Vol. 757, c. 1582.]
This is something which I entirely support and intend to adhere to.

BAC311 Project and European Airbus

Mr. Sillars: asked the Minister for Aviation Supply what representations he has received from Scottish aviation

industry interests about the need for an early announcement of the Government's policy on the BAC311 project.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation Supply (Mr. David Price): Both the management and the union side of the industry in Scotland made representations. These were given full weight in the Government's consideration of the claims for launching aid for the BAC311.

Mr. Sillars: I am sure that the Minister appreciates that that Question was tabled before the announcement was made in the House.

Sir G. Nabarro: We cannot hear.

Mr. Sillars: I will speak just as loudly as the hon. Gentleman normally does.
Will the Minister confirm that his decision will have an effect on job opportunities in the Scottish aviation industry? Will he tell us what steps the Government took to take into account the effect on employment in development areas in general before the decision was made?

Mr. Price: Yes. I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the decision was taken basically on the merits of the proposal. The question of employment in development areas comes secondary. It cannot be the primary question.
Concerning job opportunities, I do not think that the major employer in the aviation industry in Scotland, Rolls-Royce, will be affected. It is possible that the Scottish aviation industry will lose opportunities as a result. But, looking a little further ahead, we are reasonably hopeful that sub-contracts coming from other projects will help to make up some of the slack.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister for Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the Government's policy with regard to the A300B European Airbus and the BAC311.

Mr. Grylls: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply, in view of the concern amongst staff at the British Aircraft Corporation, Weybridge, factory over future employment prospects, whether he will make an early statement on the Government's policy to the BAC311 project.

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will now make a statement on the BAC311 and the European Airbus.

Mr. Temple: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will now announce the Government's intentions with regard to approaches made by the European Airbus Consortium concerning Great Britain once again entering that consortium, and the terms upon which the Government's decision has been based.

Mr. Corfield: I cannot add to the statement I made in the House on 2nd December.—[Vol. 807, c. 1286–94.]

Mr. Cronin: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing a detailed account of the financial considerations which brought about his decision? Will he also consider whether it is possible to modify the contractual arrangements with Lockheed about the Tristar, bearing in mind that the Government are in the odd position of subsidising the American aircraft industry?

Mr. Corfield: I have given consideration to the matter raised in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I believe that publication of any considerable detail is bound to be harmful overall, but I have offered to discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman.
On the second part of the question, I made it clear, I think on 2nd December, that I had studied this contract and that I saw no prospect whatever of being able to renegotiate it to give the more favourable terms which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Grylls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on these benches think that there should continue to be a healthy aircraft industry? Is he aware that many of my constituents who work at Weybridge are concerned about their future in the late and mid-'seventies? As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) made clear, they are very dependent on the future of the Concorde project. In the light of all this, will my right hon. Friend consider backing a project for a short take-off plane which B.A.C. is considering?

Mr. Corfield: It is too early to give any indication on those lines. No doubt

the B.A.C., as other airframe companies, will have proposals, and when they are proposals I shall look at them on their merits.

Mr. Marten: What is the likely redundancy in the B.A.C. due to not going on with the BAC311?

Mr. Corfield: As I said a few moments ago, it is too early to make any assessment of that sort.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the short takeoff and vertical take-off concepts are probably the key to the future of the medium-haul industry in this country? Is he not taking this rather lightly in the answers that he has given?

Mr. Corfield: I am not taking it lightly. This has been of great personal interest over a number of years. What is abundantly clear is that there is a great deal of other research that has to be done on the infrastructure side, and it would be unwise to encourage anybody to believe that this is likely to appear in the immediate future.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what consideration he has given to the question of Government support for the long-range version of the European airbus, the A300 B7.

Mr. Corfield: Our decision not to participate in the A300B project extended to the B7 as well as the basic version.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Could my right hon. Friend at least give some hope that in the event of B.E.A. wanting this aircraft, and in return for a firm commitment from the German and French Governments to assist Rolls-Royce with another mark of aircraft engine which would be suitable for this aircraft, and perhaps for a stretched version of the Lockheed Tristar, the Government would consider giving a measure of support to this project?

Mr. Corfield: My hon. Friend is raising hypothetical possibilities. The conclusion that we came to—and I see no signs of any of the facts on which that conclusion was based being altered—was simply that there was not a sufficiently large market for the A-300 B7 with Rolls-Royce engines to justify the very high costs of development.

Airframe Industry

Mr. Carter: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he intends to maintain a British airframe industry.

Mr. Corfield: The expenditure by my Department in the British aircraft industry probably gives the most appropriate measure of the support that the industry is receiving from the Government. In the current year my Votes make provision for spending £335 million with the British aircraft industry; £247 million of this will be on defence supply contracts, and £88 million on civil projects, including Concorde.

Mr. Carter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply will do very little to mollify those in the industry who are very disturbed about their position, particularly after the announcements of last week, and that far from the industry being regarded as one of those science-based industries that were going to aid Britains entry into the Common Market, it appears that the Government are prepared to scrap it to get in and to produce co-operation within Europe, to the detriment of the British airframe industry?

Mr. Corfield: That is a quite erroneous impression. As far as I know, no Government have ever undertaken to maintain the British aircraft industry at any level irrespective of their judgment on the projects. On the matter of European cooperation, I have made it clear on several occasions that this was not a deciding factor although, looking to the future, we believe, as did our predecessors, that this is becoming a "must" in relation to all the European countries.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree, first, that it is essential to maintain an airframe industry in this country, and, second, that our contribution to the M.R.C.A. is of vital importance not only to this country but to the future of European co-operation?

Mr. Corfield: I agree with both those propositions.

Mr. William Rodgers: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what trends in employment in the industry he anticipates? I know the difficulties in judging the precise consequences of the decision about the BAC311, but the right hon.

Gentleman must have some idea of what the likely movement of employment will be.

Mr. Corfield: No, Sir. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that it is too early to make that sort of assessment.

Mr. Tebbit: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is his opinion that if he had announced support for the BAC311 he would have had to face another censure Motion, as he did when he announced support for Rolls-Royce?

Mr. Corfield: That is always a probability.

Concorde

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the Concorde.

Mr. Corfield: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on Wednesday, 18th November.—[Vol. 806, c. 1212–15.]

Mr. Sheldon: Has the Minister considered the furore that is going on in the United States about the further financing of its supersonic transport? Has he considered the effect of this upon the options for Concorde, more than half of which are by American airlines and which, in the event of the United States supersonic transport not going forward is bound to result in a curtailing of licensing and other arrangements for such aircraft for the United States, and what has the right hon. Gentleman to say about this?

Mr. Corfield: I have considered those developments, but I have equally considered the strong speech of President Nixon, which shows a determination to persuade Congress, if he possibly can, to overrule its present decision.

Mr. Mather: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a viable British airframe industry is very much dependent on the Concorde project? Can he assure us that that will be borne in mind, as well as the commercial prospects and obligations to our partner?

Mr. Corfield: Those are important aspects, but I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish us to proceed if, as I trust will not be the case, and as I do not believe will be the case, it turned out


that Concorde was not in demand by the airlines.

Mr. Benn: What contact is the right hon. Gentleman maintaining with the American Government about Concorde? Will he make it crystal clear at the highest level in Washington that if the American Congress were to pass legislation which would make it impossible for Concorde to operate even subsonically in the United States, this would create a major crisis of confidence between the two countries?

Mr. Corfield: I have already made that clear on a previous occasion, and it will be very much in our minds.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if, in view of the fact that the cost of international co-operation in building Concorde has proved to be three times as large as estimated, he will disclose the details of the use to which Government moneys have been put in this project and the degree of inaccuracy in other related estimates.

Mr. Corfield: If the hon. Gentleman could specify a little more clearly what he has in mind in the latter part of his Question, I will try to let him have an answer.

Mr. Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the managing director of B.A.C. has declared that the cost of Concorde being an international project has involved the company in three times the cost in which it would have been involved if it had been a national project? Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell me just what is the X factor which one can use as a multiplicate? In other words, will he give the figure which must be multiplied by three to ascertain the proportion of the cost attributable to this being an international project?

Mr. Corfield: I think the hon. Gentleman is better verbally than he is as a draftsman, if I may say so. I remind him that estimates of the extra cost of co-operation are purely matters of judgment and in many cases, of fairly wide speculation. It is virtually impossible to identify the extra cost beyond a quite narrow band of costs. In so far as it has been possible to identify these costs, we think that they add about 10 per

Cent. to the total cost. However, I believe that there is probably truth in the suggestion that it is more than that, though it is quite impossible to identify it.

Mr. Barnett: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what estimate he has made of the repayment to the Government from likely sales of the Concorde aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Corfield: The proportion of development expenditure recovered will depend on sales, and I would prefer not to speculate about this at the present stage.

Mr. Barnett: Implicit in that reply is the fact that the true net cost is not known to the Minister. Is that not totally out of line with his philosophy of not allowing open-ended commitments? In those circumstances, does not the Minister owe it to the House to tell us what it is if he has made the estimate for which the Question asks?

Mr. Corfield: The proportion of development cost to be recovered depends on sales, whatever the net cost is. What I said was, therefore, perfectly correct, and the hon. Gentleman is arguing from a false premise.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: As sales are so vital to any project, what is my right hon. Friend doing to encourage sales throughout the Commonwealth, and particularly in Australia, New Zealand and India?

Mr. Corfield: I have indicated previously how extremely difficult it is for firms to mount a major sales operation until they are in a position to give firm indications of the aircraft specification and operating characteristics. We hope that this stage will be reached quite early in the new year.

Mr. William Rodgers: The right hon. Gentleman explained the other day that he could not say what the selling cost would be until he had discussed the matter with his French counterpart. Is it not possible now for him to say what the unit cost of production of the aircraft will be, excluding the development cost, on certain alternative assumptions about sales?

Mr. Corfield: That is another question. As for the selling price, I have indicated


that this is a matter which I shall be discussing next week with M. Mondon.

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what consideration is now being given to the planning of a stretched version of the Concorde.

Mr. Corfield: I think at this stage we must concentrate on making a success of the present design.

Mr. Marten: While I naturally agree with my right hon. Friend about that, may I ask him, in view of the noises that are coming out of the American Congress and the effect of the BAC311 cancellation on B.A.C., whether he agrees that the Government should now be pressing to get some thinking going on a stretched version of the Concorde as a measure of confidence in the success of this project?

Mr. Corfield: I do not entirely follow my hon. Friend's argument. I think that if the American decision is adhered to, there may be a much longer life for the standard version, with a postponement of any need to stretch it.

Harrier Aircraft

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister for Aviation Supply what further developments are being undertaken to improve on the performance of the Harrier vertical-take-off aircraft.

Mr. David Price: During the next two years the Pegasus engines at present installed in the R.A.F.'s Harriers will be replaced by more powerful versions. We are also studying the feasibility of a further up-rating of the engine, but no decision has been made to proceed beyond this study.

Mr. Cronin: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a large requirement by the United States Navy for the Harrier if its payload and range are increased? Will he give the maximum priority to the development of the proposed Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine, because that would probably achieve that result?

Mr. Price: Yes, Sir. We are aware of those facts.

Mr. Adley: Can my right hon. Friend say what anti-pollutant arguments the United States Government are putting up

about the Harrier, in view of the fact that they have just purchased it for their own use?

Mr. Price: I am not immediately aware of those arguments, but I shall look into them and write to my hon. Friend.

Rotax Ltd. (Factory)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply to what extent he estimates the proposed closure of the Chandos Road factory of Rotax Limited and the redundancy of the staff there recently will affect the supply of aircraft as planned and foreseen by his Department.

Mr. David Price: The company is cooperating closely with my Department in order to prevent any adverse effect on our aircraft programmes.

Mr. Pavitt: Has the redundancy of 700 men, most of them my constituents, anything to do with the cancellation of the BAC311? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the electrical systems have been done in my constituency, and that these men, who form a very good team, won the Queen's Award less than a year ago? Can the hon. Gentleman do something to keep this factory in being?

Mr. Price: The short answer is "No". The firm found itself short of both civil and military orders and, as the hon. Gentleman knows better than I do, it is concentrating its activities on other factories.

BAC111 Aircraft

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what has been the total cost to the Exchequer of funding the development of all versions of the BAC111; how much has been earned in exports by these aircraft; and what have been the levies per sale imposed by his Department.

Mr. David Price: Total launching aid is £18·75 million. Export earnings are about £200 million, and import savings about £100 million so far. The levies per sale are a matter of commercial confidence.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware how clearly these figures demonstrate how essential it is that products


like aircraft, which are of a high added value—

Hon. Members: Reading.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the lack of light, the hon. Gentleman cannot possibly be reading. [Laughter.]

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware how clearly these figures demonstrate how products of a high added value like civil airliners are essential to our economy and prosperity?

Mr. Price: I entirely agree that high added value products are very desirable and helpful to the economy. However, because one project—for example, the BAC111—is successful, it does not follow that every other civil aviation project will be equally successful or should be equally backed.

VSTOL Aircraft

Mr. Warren: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he can make a statement on the progress of the studies by his Department of the proposals submitteed by the British aircraft industry for vertical take-off and landing and short take-off and landing transports.

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply when his Department plans to complete the evaluation of the rival vertical/short take-off and landing designs submitted to it, with a view to a decision on the launching aid to be provided for a truly vertical/short take-off and landing civil jet airliner.

Mr. David Price: These studies are well advanced. We hope to be in a position to make a statement in the early part of next year.

Mr. Warren: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that after the disappointing decisions last week on both airbus ventures, his statement is very welcome indeed, because the civil aircraft design teams in this country now face complete dissolution?

Mr. Price: I do not agree with my hon. Friend's latter point. However, there is certainly reason to be concerned about the design team at Weybridge, though none of the others is affected by this decision. I remind my hon. Friend, as my right hon. Friend said earlier, that

we have quite a long way to go on infrastructure before it will be possible to be clear of the exact parameters that will be needed for either VTOL or STOL.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that while he may disclaim heredity in aircraft success, the Weybridge design team, certainly since the war, has been more successful than any other? Will he take this into consideration when it makes VTOL and STOL submissions to his Ministry?

Mr. Price: I agree with my hon. Friend about the merit of design teams. I suggest that all British design teams are better, though it could be that the Weybridge design team is somewhat better than the others.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Housing Act, 1969 (Special Officers)

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of local authorities have appointed special officers in connection with the Housing Act 1969.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): Local authority arrangements for the administration of improvement grants vary, but my right hon. Friend will issue further guidance on this subject in the light of experience we have been accumulating.

Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the progress of improvements? Is there not a considerable shortfall at present? Where special officers have been appointed, is my hon. Friend satisfied that they have a knowledge of building techniques?

Mr. Channon: The appointment of a special officer can be exceedingly helpful. On the general question, improvement grants are now running at about 90 per cent. higher than in 1969. The campaign for improvement grants is going very well.

Pollution

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a statement on public expenditure on the prevention of pollution.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): Expenditure for this purpose has been growing at an increasing rate and is expected to continue to grow. The Annual White Paper on Public Expenditure is expected to be published in January.

Mr. Marks: Has the expenditure by local authorities on the prevention of pollution during the coming financial year been taken into account in the negotiations for the rate support grant?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, and I can only say again to the hon. Gentleman that if he will await the annual White Paper on public expenditure more will be made clear to him then.

Mr. Charles Morris: Is the Minister aware, in the area of political darkness on the benches opposite, that many local authorities feel let down in their battle to prevent atmospheric pollution by the fact that they have been obliged to abandon smoke control areas? Will he consider giving financial reimbursement to local authorities involved in additional expenditure as a result?

Mr. Griffiths: I find it strange that, coming from that side of the House, there should be any suggestion that the shortage of smokeless fuel, which we all very much regret, should be laid at the door of this Administration. On the contrary, my right hon. Friend has taken considerable steps to mitigate the damage. I recognise the question which the hon. Gentleman asks. If he will put it down separately, I shall answer it. But I will not take from him any castigations on this subject.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete his consultations on the reorganisation of local government; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to publish his proposals for the reform of local government.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): My right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Marks: Will the consultations include not only the local authority associations, which are of one mind with the Government, at the moment, but also organisations such as the National Association of Local Government Officers and the National Union of Teachers, whose members' careers will be affected by this and who may be considered in the future as possible candidates in local elections?

Mr. Page: My right hon. Friend and I will welcome consultations with anyone interested in this subject. It is intended to publish a White Paper in the New Year and to follow that with consultations, as I say, with anyone interested in the subject.

Mr. Allason: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that it will be a two-tier system throughout the country and that he is not prepared to accept representations to any opposite effect at this stage?

Mr. Page: I would ask by hon. Friend to await the full statement in the White Paper.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Can the Minister assure us that in any reorganisation proposals the Government will not depart from the principle laid down by the previous Administration of appointing a staffing commission to look after the interests of local government officers who may well be affected by the proposals?

Mr. Page: Certainly. Any proposals for reorganisation will take into account the position of the present staffs of local authorities.

Mr. Redmond: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing concern in parts of Lancashire and Cheshire at the original proposals for a metropolitan authority based on Manchester? Can he assure us that the existence of the S.E.L.N.E.C. Passenger Transport Authority will not be taken as a precedent for future local government areas?

Mr. Page: The existence of that passenger transport authority goes rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I ask my hon. Friend to put down a separate Question on that.

Mr. Crosland: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the purpose of these consultations when he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have already made it


perfectly clear that they believe in a two-tier county/county district system? Have not they made up their minds on the fundamentals before even beginning the consultations?

Mr. Page: There have ben many consultations on this subject up to the present. The White Paper will set out fairly firmly the Government's views about reorganisation. But there will be many months of discussion following that statement of the Government's policy. At least we shall be laying down what we think. It will then be open to discussion.

M6, Cannock (Crash Barriers)

Mr. Cormack: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects crash barriers to be erected along that stretch of the M6 which passes through the Cannock parliamentary constituency.

Mr. Graham Page: During the financial year 1972–73.

Mr. Cormack: I thank my hon. Friend for that enlightening answer.

Stranraer-Euston Boat Train

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authorities in the South-West of Scotland about the need to maintain the Stranraer-Euston boat train; what replies he has given; and if he will state the Government's policy towards continuing grant aid to this service beyond the summer of 1971.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: None, in recent months, Sir. The Government's policy in respect of grants to all non-paying passenger railway services is under review.

Mr. Sillars: Is the Minister aware that in a recent economic study of the South-West of Scotland this service was identified as being extremely important? Is he further aware of the deep feelings among all political parties and all responsible bodies in the South-West of Scotland that the retention of this boat train is essential in the long term if that area is to remain economically viable?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that no representations from local authorities have been received on this matter in recent months.

I hear what he says now. British Rail has said that it does not wish to operate the service as a commercial one, but it is at the moment considering whether to issue a closure notice. No decision has been made, and the Government are reviewing their own policy.

Mr. Brewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that at a former T.U.C.C. hearing a condition was laid down by the Minister of Transport that this train should continue to run? Does my hon. Friend intend to honour that condition?

Mr. Griffiths: The running of the train is a matter for British Rail. It has not so far decided whether to seek closure procedures, and the Government are reviewing their own grant aid policy.

Mr. Mulley: I understand that the Government are reviewing their unremunerative grants policy and have been doing so for a long time. Is not the Minister aware that on a great number of lines the grants will expire on 31st December? Will the hon. Gentleman make sure that we have a statement before the House rises next week on what will happen about the existing grants which expire on 31st December? We do not want a decision during the recess.

Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. Friend can only make such a statement when he has received all the necessary information from British Rail. Some of that information is still awaited. As soon as it is available, my right hon. Friend will make a statement.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable traffic between Larne and Stranraer and that the closure of the line will mean great hardship to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Griffiths: All these considerations will be taken into account before my right hon. Friend makes his statement.

Housing Conversion Schemes, Islington

Mr. George Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given to local authorities on the provision by them of so-called higher rented accommodation in the London area, in view of his inquiry into the matter in South Islington.

Mr. Channon: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the conversion schemes in Bachelor Street and Barnsbury Street, Islington. Arrangements have been made to ensure that the Department is consulted about any improvement or conversion schemes where the cost is likely to exceed the appropriate London maxima before the local authority or housing association is committed.

Mr. Cunningham: Does the Minister understand that if present trends continue Inner London will become an area where it is impossible for people on average earnings to afford to live? Will he agree that the policy of the G.L.C. in this respect exacerbates that trend, and will he use his influence to reverse the policy now being pursued?

Mr. Channon: The problems of Inner London are exceedingly worrying, although I do not accept all that the hon. Gentleman says about the policies of the G.L.C. But it is a bit thick for us to be criticised when the party opposite was in power for six years.

Tenants (Harassment)

Mr. George Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to increase the penalties for harassment of tenants.

Mr. Channon: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) on 25th November.—[Vol. 807, c. 127–8].

Mr. Cunningham: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed the very low level of fines imposed in the courts for this offence, which are out of line with both the gravity of the offence and the profits to be made from it? Will not he introduce legislation to increase the penalties for this very serious social offence?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on what penalties the courts actually impose. That is a matter for the courts. As he knows, my right hon. Friend has asked the Francis Committee to consider carefully penalties for this offence. We are awaiting its report, which we expect to receive quickly.

Mr. Richard: But would the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is necessary

not only to consider penalties for the offence but also to consider extending the scope of the offence itself, since a great deal of harassment is going on, particularly in the urban areas like London, which is not caught by the present law as it should be?

Mr. Channon: The Francis Committee has been set up to review the whole working of the Act, and we are waiting its report.

Mr. Leonard: Would the hon. Gentleman pass on to the Francis Committee the Greve Report on homeless families in London, which is reliably described as showing that the level of harassment has increased in recent years?

Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend has already instructed a copy of the Greve Report to be sent to the Francis Committee.

Mr. Freeson: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a great deal of this harassment arises indirectly, but to the knowledge of local authorities, as a result of their actions, that some local authorities are imposing purchase orders on properties, requiring that they be sold with vacant possession, which results in harassment of the tenants concerned by the prospective sellers? Would he remember the need to pursue local authorities on this matter to stop this kind of conduct?

Mr. Channon: I should like to examine what the hon. Gentleman says. I will ensure that the Francis Committee notes all the suggestions made at Question Time today.

Old People's Flats, Sheffield (Contract)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied that the contract for old people's flats at Shamrock Road, Ridge-way Road and Cotleigh Crescent were awarded to the Public Works Department in Sheffield, as a result of a competitive tender against outside contractors; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Channon: Sheffield Corporation has asked whether these schemes may be awarded as continuations contracts based on schemes won in competition by the P.W.D. I will consider this when


full details are available. I am keeping under very close review the operation of circular 57/69 which deals with the award of housing contracts to D.L.Os.

Mr. Osborn: Is my hon. Friend aware that many ratepayers are concerned that they are not obtaining value for money when work is sub-contracted to the public works department? What can he do to ensure that his Ministry helps this situation?

Mr. Channon: I can assure my hon. Friend that in every case where direct labour organisations ask for this work to be won as continuation schemes I myself now consider the details very carefully. If there is any evidence that ratepayers are not getting value for money, I shall have no hesitation in turning them down.

Mr. Mulley: Before he decides, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will study the record of the public works department in Sheffield, including the internationally-acclaimed Park Hill flats scheme in my constituency, and will not allow the vendetta against the public works department conducted by his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) to persuade him, as it persuaded his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, to cancel the contract, with great detriment to the education of students in the Sheffield Polytechnic recently?

Mr. Chanson: I certainly accept not a single word of what the right hon. Gentleman says about the "vendetta" of my hon. Friend. I will examine this proposal, when it comes to me, on its merits.

Monorail

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies his department has made of the effect of a monorail system on commuter traffic in large cities.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Various rapid transit systems, including those using the monorail principle, have been examined as part of the Manchester Rapid Transit Study completed in 1967. A medium-capacity monorail system is now being carefully looked at.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Would my hon. Friend not agree that one of the problems

in a transport system for a town like London is that, whereas there are authorities responsible for a system of transport like buses or trains, it is no one's specific responsibility to investigate new modes of transport? Would he look into this?

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the problem of needing to look at all forms of transport together. My Department, in co-operation with some 50 cities, is doing precisely that at the moment, particularly in Birmingham and Newcastle, where we are paying no less than 50 per cent. of the cost.

Development (Injuriously Affected Properties)

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now take steps to give compensation to all those whose properties are injuriously affected by new public development.

Mr. Graham Page: We shall decide what steps to take when we have completed the comprehensive review we have in hand of the compensation code.

Mr. Golding: Will the hon. Gentleman introduce compensation as quickly as possible for those who surfer financial loss because of the proximity of new roads such as the B road being built in North Staffordshire? Is he aware that there is growing concern about this problem?

Mr. Page: I am very anxious to put our proposals before the House as quickly as possible. It is a complex subject and there are large financial issues involved, but we will do our best to put it before the House at an early date.

Multi-Storey Flat Occupation

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will institute an investigation on the social, medical and other problems arising out of multi-storey flat occupation.

Mr. Channon: The Department's Housing Research and Development Group is conducting continuing research into residents' reactions to different types of flats and houses.

Mr. Carter: But would the hon. Gentleman not accept that that is an entirely unsatisfactory reply when one realises


that social, medical and psychiatric opinion today is very concerned not only with the present problems arising out of multi-storey flat occupation but about future problems? Would he not also accept as evidence of this that I alone—other hon. Members must have a similar story to tell—receive 20 applications each month for transfers from these properties?

Mr. Channon: I hope that the hon. Member does not think that it is an unsatisfactory reply. I believe that more research is needed into this problem, although I certainly accept the conclusion that families with small children are certainly better housed not in this type of building. But it would be wrong for the House to imagine that all the problems listed in the report are found exclusively in high flats; they are often found in other places as well.

Mr. James Hill: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it is the lack of play areas in the vicinity of these multistorey blocks that is one of the greatest social needs, and could he direct local authorities to give more assistance to voluntary play group associations which are trying to help with this crying need?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. My right hon. Friend hopes to publish a design bulletin next year giving advice on provision of this very sort of facility.

Brent (Housing Starts)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of new housing starts in the current year planned by the London Borough of Brent.

Mr. Channon: The council has started 176 dwellings since 1st January, 1970.

Mr. Pavitt: How many starts have actually been made? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last year 1,976 starts were planned and only 24 achieved? In view of the fact that the council are selling off sites left, right and centre, would he do something about this appalling housing problem in my constituency?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend is very concerned about the whole question of

housing in London, and that he is already engaged in discussions with all the London boroughs about this very important problem. Certainly, he will bear in mind what the hon. Member says.

Mr. Freeson: Can the hon. Gentleman give some idea of the results of those discussions, bearing in mind that they are largely a repetition of very thorough investigation undertaken before this Administration came into power? Is he aware that the authority in question, like many others, has been sharply cutting down on its house construction programme, despite the very serious housing problem? It has reduced by 4,000 on its original building programme during its period of office.

Mr. Channon: To answer the hon. Gentleman's factual question, officers of my Department are to meet officials of the council on 14th December and we shall await the report of that meeting with great interest.

Derelict Sites (Clearance)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to maintain the 85 per cent. grant to local authorities for the clearance of derelict sites.

Mr. Graham Page: Grant at 85 per cent. is payable in the development areas, and this will be maintained, as my right hon. Friend told the hon. Member in answer to a Question on 25th November.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a very satisfactory answer as far as it goes but is there not still a vast amount of work to be done in this field? What active steps are the Government taking positively to encourage local authorities to get on with the job?

Mr. Page: Under the present rate of grant, schemes for reclamation are being approved at an increasing rate. I think that local authorities concerned have this well in mind and the programme which they have in hand is not disappointing.

Mr. Blenkinsop: As the Prime Minister himself has said that fresh steps are to be taken to increase the total amount of dereliction clearing, why does not the Minister announce an increase to 100 per cent. grant, in these special cases?

Mr. Page: The programme is increasing, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. Local authorities receive assistance other than the 85 per cent. grant. The development areas are getting about 95 per cent. assistance from the Exchequer through the rate support grant.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

European Economic Community (Ministerial Statements)

Mr. Deakins: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will ensure that Ministerial statements about Her Majesty's Government's attitudes to proposals for economic, monetary or political union within the European Economic Community are made first to the House of Commons.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Yes, Sir. Statements to the House will continue to be made after each Ministerial meeting.

Mr. Deakins: Is not the Lord President of the Council aware of the grave disquiet among members of all parties about the statements being made in Europe by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the effect that the Government are in favour of political unity with Western Europe—a vitally important topic which has never been discussed in the Chamber? If the Lord President cannot restrain the misplaced and somewhat boyish enthusiasm of the Chancellor of the Duchy, will he undertake to arrange an early debate in the House on this very important subject?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my right hon. Friend is, as I have previously promised, making a statement tomorrow. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will wish to put those comments to my right hon. Friend then.

Indian Ocean Islands

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will move to set up a Select Committee to examine British policy in the Indian Ocean islands.

Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: As cat and mouse semantics at Prime Minister's Question Time

are a mutually unsatisfactory way of discovering the truth about the Government's plans for Indian Ocean bases, is there not a serious case for a Select Committee on Defence, which has been urged by some of the Lord President's hon. Friends and, indeed, for crisp ad hoc subcommittees which could clear up mysteries about Indian Ocean bases?

Mr. Whitelaw: Whilst not accepting that there is any mystery in this case, I have made perfectly clear the basis on which I think that the House would be wise to proceed as regards Select Committees. That is the basis on which we are proceeding. I think that it is right to proceed on that basis at this stage.

Mr. David James: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that there is considerable anxiety on the score of world wildlife preservation in any Indian Ocean proposal.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure that is something I ought to know about but do not.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Turton: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will move to amend the Standing Orders to provide that the House should meet for Prayers at 2.20 p.m. in order to allow a longer period for Questions, as recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure in its Second Report of last Session on Question Time.

Mr. Whitelaw: As I have already indicated, my advice to the House is that we should wait a little longer, say until early after Christmas, before considering this and any other changes in Question Time procedures.

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction at the way Question Time is going at present and that many hon. Members are not able to get Oral Answers to Questions? Will he now open conversations through the usual channels and unusual channels to see which of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure would command majority support?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, certainly I will. I will go somewhat further than that. I will certainly consider the possibility


after Christmas of giving the House an opportunity to decide which of the various methods hon. Members would themselves prefer.

Mr. Crosland: Will the Lord President bear in mind the fact that the difficulty of getting answers to Questions is nothing to do with the time we have? It is due to the fact that Ministers either cannot or will not give us the answers.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind also that, as a result of the creation of the two very large Departments, the Environment and Trade and Industry, it is almost certain that we are now getting less time on what used to be the constituents of those Departments than we formerly did?

Mr. Whitelaw: I would enjoy a discussion with the right hon. Gentleman on the relative merits of the answers to Questions given by various Governments, but I do not think that now is the moment for that. On the right hon. Gentleman's more important and second point, this is something that we should certainly consider. After all, everyone recognises that the new Departments are a development which in all their different aspects must be carefully considered. Question Time is one of these, and we will look at this.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: While the present temporary—we hope—situation persists, will my right hon. Friend consider actually extending the period for Prayers, since it is obviously now more conducive to meditation than altercation?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not really quite understand, so I think I had better not try to answer.

Bookshop

Mr. David James: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will consider the establishment of a bookshop within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Whitelaw: A proposal is, at present, before the Services Committee for the establishment of a stall for the sale of Bills and other parliamentary papers to visitors to the Strangers' Gallery.
If my hon. Friend has a more general bookshop in mind, I am sure the Committee will have noted his suggestion.

Mr. David James: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for knowing more about this Question than he did about the previous one that I addressed to him. Will he bear in mind that with more than 2,000 people living and working in this building who will have increasingly little opportunity to get outside, a bookshop is almost certainly as civilised an adjunct to living as a barbers' shop or a branch of Thomas Cook? Will my right hon. Friend recommend this favourably?

Mr. Whitelaw: Without wishing to be drawn into the various comparisons or the merits of what my hon. Friend says, I am sure that the Services Committee in its considerations will take careful note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Members' Pensions and Allowances

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Lord President of the Council whether the review body he is setting up to investigate pensions increases for retired public servants will be asked to examine the pensions of retired public servants who were formerly Members of Parliament; and whether he will request this review body to investigate the possibility of granting Members of Parliament the same conditions for pension rights as civil servants.

Mr. Whitelaw: I announced to the House on 4th December the intention of the Government to refer the whole question of emoluments, allowances, expenses and pensions of Members of the House to one of the Review Bodies announced on 2nd November by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I think this is the more appropriate course.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I thank the Lord President for that helpful reply. Will he deal with the last point raised in the Question; namely, tying Members' pensions to Civil Service pensions, which would then automatically take this matter out of the arena of any review or constant investigation?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that the best course at this time is to say that of course this would naturally be one of the things which the Review Body could perfectly well consider. [Interruption.] Equally, I


think that there are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) seems to be indicating from behind me, several views on this point. Therefore, I believe that it will be right for the Review Body to consider all the circumstances very carefully.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I do not wish to be tied to any civil servant?

Mr. Whitelaw: I would never have imagined that my right hon. Friend would wish to be tied to a civil servant or anybody else.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is aware that although Members of Parliament have had no salary increases since October, 1964, Peers have had their expenses allowances increased to £6 10s. per day; and whether, to assist Members who have to pay increased hotel and board and lodging allowance when attending to their parliamentary duties, he will move for the same allowances as are paid to Peers to be paid to Members of the House of Commons.

Mr. Whitelaw: It would be inappropriate to extend to Members of this House the system of expenses allowance which applies to Members of the House of Lords under very different circumstances.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I rather thought that the non-democratically elected body would get preference over the democratically elected body, although I pay tribute to some of the noble Peers who have voluntarily agreed to postpone their 14 per cent. increase on top of the 37 per cent. which they received in the last two and a half years.
However, is the Minister aware that hon. Members representing country or out-of-London constituencies and who have to live away from their homes must obviously have found that things have become vastly different over the last six years generally, and in the last six months in particular when the £ has depreciated by 6·6 per cent.?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not wish to follow the hon. Gentleman into his comparisons with another place. I agreed to refer all these matters to a Review Body. I believe that that is the right place for these

matters to be considered. I believe that the House as a whole thinks that it is the right place. That is why I did it. I hope that we shall now proceed on that basis. I realise that this means delaying some other matters, but I think that the House accepts this position.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does the Leader of the House agree that the expenses incurred because a person is a Member of Parliament should be allowed to him or her?

Mr. Whitelaw: These are all matters appropriate to be considered by the Review Body. I note what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Bob Brown: Whilst the whole House is grateful for the Review Body submission, will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the Government will accept the Review Body's recommendations and implement them as quickly as possible?

Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir. I made it quite clear last Friday that I did not think that this or any Government could be bound in advance to the recommendations of a Review Body, and to that answer, which I think is widely appreciated on both sides of the House, I must stick.

Select Committee on Expenditure

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord President of the Council when he intends to move to establish the new Select Committee on Expenditure.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am, of course, aware of the importance of this matter and am concerned that the Committee should be set up with the minimum of delay. I cannot say exactly when that will be, however, because discussions are still taking place.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Committee be set up this Session, because it is very important that it should be set up in sufficient time to consider the Government's White Paper on Public Expenditure so that the House can have a meaningful debate on the matter?

Mr. Whitelaw: I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view; and it will be.

Mr. Stratton Mills: In considering this matter will my right hon. Friend bear


in mind the previous Sub-Committees of the Estimates Committee which did so much work in the last Session of Parliament and which are anxious to have their reports published? Will my light hon. Friend consider the mechanism for this?

Mr. Whitelaw: In the debate on the Green Paper on Select Committees I gave the assurance that all the previous work of various Committees would be used in the new structure. That will certainly be the position.

ROADS (SPEED LIMIT SIGNS)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. WARREN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the estimated cost involved in alterations to vehicles and road signs of all kinds if metric distance and speed measurements are introduced into this country.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 52.
Nearly £2 million for speed limit signs: the Government have however decided that speed limits will not be made metric in 1973 and have no alternative date in mind.

Mr. John Page: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even illumination carried by the hon. Member does not take precedence over the name of the questioner on the Order Paper.

Mr. Warren: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, because we were beginning to run pell-mell towards metric mania, which the general public does not like and does not want.

Mr. Peyton: I am very sorry to hear that my hon. Friend was running pell-mell to anywhere, but I am glad that he is relieved.

Mr. John Page: May I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on showing that the Government are really going on at a mile a minute, as opposed to their predecessors. Is he aware that the ordinary people of the country are delighted to hear that their views are being listened to by the Government?

Mr. Peyton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. I wish to make an application for a Standing Order No. 9 emergency debate.
I should like to apologise, Mr. Speaker, for my failure to give you adequate notice. This was because we were hoping that a Minister would make a statement this afternoon in view of the very grave situation in the electricity supply industry. In view of the failure to do so, I decided at the last possible moment to make this application, and by then you had already taken the Chair.
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the growing gravity of the situation facing the nation as a direct result of the Government's policy of political intervention in the industrial dispute in the electricity supply industry and their refusal to use the conciliation machinery.
I submit that this is a matter of extreme urgency. The inconvenience facing the House this afternoon is as nothing compared with the inconvenience facing the nation as a result of the deliberate political intervention by the Government.
The matter is specific because it relates to the Government's failure to take an opportunity this afternoon to make a statement to the House, and this should be a matter for consideration.
It is a matter of public importance because it is incumbent upon the House, in the absence of any lead from the Government, to urge the setting up of a court of inquiry so that the dispute can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is as well if I remind the House of the courtesies of the House. Standing Order No. 9(3) says:
A Member intending to propose to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of this order shall give notice to Mr. Speaker by twelve of the clock, if the urgency of the matter is known at that hour. If the urgency is not so known he shall give notice as soon thereafter as is practicable.
But I have noted, and the House will note, the apology of the hon. Gentleman


and the reason for his not being able to give me earlier notice.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the growing gravity of the situation facing the nation as a direct result of the Government's policy of political intervention in the industrial dispute in the electricity supply industry and their refusal to use the conciliation machinery.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reason for my decision.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provision of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is usual to accept the decision of Mr. Speaker on Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order.

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend raised a point of order and I was seeking to raise a further point of order in connection with the matter he raised and the Ruling you have just given, Mr. Speaker. I fully acknowledge that it is not open to any hon. Member to question the Ruling that you have given. That is laid down in the rules of order.
What I am asking, further to that point of order, is whether it is open to you to tell the House that nothing you have said today will exclude the possibility of a further application for a Standing Order No. 9 debate tomorrow, because more and more people in the House and throughout the country believe that it is essential that we should discuss the matter in the House in order to bring the dispute to an end as swiftly as possible, to remove the growing inconvenience and the growing anxieties throughout the country.
Therefore, my point of order is this. Is it open to a Member to submit the matter to your Ruling again under Standing Order No. 9 tomorrow, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I never rule about the future. I remind the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that this is the second application for the same Standing Order No. 9 debate this week, which really answers his question.

Mr. Peart: On a point of order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it is possible to have a statement either from you, because of your responsibility, or from the Leader of the House about the arrangements for hon. Members to continue with business in view of the difficulties?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), I shall of course convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment what has been said, and I shall see whether a statement should be made to the House tomorrow.

Mr. Callaghan: Why not today?

Hon. Members: Now.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members do themselves no good and Parliament no good by howling.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have learned the value of patience over some time, though it is difficult. When I am trying to help the House I do not see any reason why hon. Members should be unreasonable with me. I was trying to say what I would do my best to do in the interests of the House as a whole. I should have thought that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), for one, would be reasonable if he thought that I was at least doing my best for the House as a whole. I regret that he and other hon. Members should have considered seeking to interrupt me on this point.
As for the point about the proceedings of the House and the lighting of the Chamber, we shall do everything we can to have sufficient light to enable the debate to continue. I am sure that it is right that it should.

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for conceding that I am usually reasonable. But I must


say to him that this is not yet the Reichstag and that he must expect to be interrupted if he makes a statement—[Interruption.]

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The first rule of order which the hon. Member for Can-nock (Mr. Cormack) must observe is that when Mr. Speaker is on his feet any other hon. Member sits down, whether he has one lantern or two. I am being addressed on a point of order already.

Mr. Callaghan: I should like to continue, if I may, to put this point to the Leader of the House. [Interruption.] I am dealing specifically with the point made by the Leader of the House and addressed specifically to me through Mr. Speaker. He was addressing me through Mr. Speaker. I should like to make this point of order to you, Mr. Speaker. If the Leader of the House shows a degree of complacency about this matter that strains the patience and tolerance of hon. Members, he must expect to be interrupted, because what is at issue here is not just the convenience of the House but the inconvenience and hardship to millions of households throughout the country.
The point of order I should like to address you upon, Mr. Speaker, is this: would it be in order, if the Leader of the House so chose and thought the matter were sufficiently urgent and of sufficient public importance, for him to communicate to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that he should come to this House later this afternoon and make a statement, interrupting business, if necessary, in order to explain to the House what the Government propose to do about removing the intolerable hardship that is hanging over the people of the country?

Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The last thing I wish to do is to excite any passions in this House. I got up for the purpose of seeking to make what I thought was a reasonable submission to the House. I still think it reasonable. If I upset the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-

East (Mr. Callaghan) I quite understand. Equally, perhaps, it is reasonable for me to say that he rather upset me. But I am prepared to forget that, as I am sure he is.
I am being perfectly reasonable. I will communicate with my right hon. Friends that there is a desire for a statement tomorrow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Today."] I have noted what the House says and I will communicate with my right hon. Friends, but I cannot guarantee that the statement will be made today. It will depend on circumstances. If a statement should be made tomorrow rather than today, it shall be made tomorrow. I think that is a reasonable proposition. [Interruption.] It is perfectly proper for me to say—and I should like the House to understand—that it may be more appropriate, in the circumstances, for a statement to be made tomorrow rather than today. I am entitled to say that. I will look into the matter with my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Callaghan: I think the House will acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has moved a little way. He has said that he will communicate with his right hon. Friend and ask him to consider, whilst it is his own view that it should be made tomorrow, whether a statement can be made today. In these circumstances, I address you, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order and ask whether it would be convenient, if the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State concluded that the statement should be made today, for business to be interrupted.
In pursuing this point of order, I must say that it has come as an extreme surprise to this side of the House that a single day should go by without the Government coming to the House at 3.30—[Interruption.]—and volunteering a statement without being pressed. [Interruption.] Surely the benches opposite realise the inconvenience and the hardship that our people are being subjected to. In these circumstances, the point I am making to you, Mr. Speaker, is that it would be reasonable for us to ask the Government to volunteer a statement, without your being embarrassed by Standing Order No. 9 requests, in order that the Government can indicate to us whether they do not really think that the time has come for them to step in and


set up a court of inquiry and tell the men that they should get back to work so that the court of inquiry can get on with the job.

Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. All I will say at this stage is simply that I have said that I will communicate with my right hon. Friends concerned. I have equally said what any Government would be entitled to say—that I must reserve the position, depending upon the circumstances, as I do not myself know them exactly at the present time. That is reasonable for any Government to say. That is all I am saying. I am at least entitled to expect, in view of the various attacks being made and without entering into the merits or demerits of the dispute, that the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to appreciate that he and his colleagues had a perfectly proper procedure open to them—that of patting down a Private Notice Question, which they did not do.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that there is a debate ahead of us on foreign affairs which the House wanted.

Mr. Milne: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Could I have your guidance on the question of the time-table for Standing Order No. 9? In the absence of a statement from the Secretary of State on the board at two o'clock this afternoon, it was not possible for those of us who were looking at the possibility of asking for a debate under Standing Order No. 9 to be able to get the request for that debate in before 12 o'clock.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that I had made the position clear when I dealt with the original application. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) explained why he could not make his application until late.

Mr. Atkinson: Further to the original point of order, Mr. Speaker. I notice that, on the Order Paper, today was described as a "Supply Day". If that is the case, then the opportunity lies with this side of the House to decide to debate electricity supply rather than foreign affairs. On the other hand, if this is not a Supply Day and the debate is to take

place on the Motion for the Adjournment, is it not within the right of every hon. Member to discuss whatever topic he wishes?

Mr. Speaker: It was to have been a Supply Day but I understand that the usual channels agreed to transfer the business from that of Supply to a debate on the Adjournment on the topic of foreign affairs. Any hon. Member who is called in a debate on the Adjournment can raise what subject he likes.

Hon. Members: Send for Davies.

Mr. Speaker: Noise does not help in any way whatever.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson). Is it not the case that, strictly speaking, even without notification of the Chair, although that may be deplored by Mr. Speaker, provided that notice is given to the appropriate Minister, an hon. Member may raise any subject he likes on the Adjournment? If I now say to the Minister that I shall raise the subjects of the fuel crisis and electricity supply, if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding any agreement which may or may not have been made between the two Front Benches, will I not be able to discuss it?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has reinforced rather voluminously the Ruling which I made just now.

Mr. Pardoe: On a point of order. I apologise for taking up the time of the House, but this is not just a question of the inconvenience of the House, or hardship for the country. I should like your advice, Mr. Speaker, about how an hon. Member can raise a matter which is literally of life and death.
Within the last two hours I have had a telephone conversation with a lady in the West Country whose son-in-law is on a kidney machine. He is a young man with two children and he has to go on the kidney machine for 10 hours every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. However, because of the power cuts and the lower voltage, the kidney machine will not sterilise itself. He has to go on tonight, but the machine will not work, and if he does not go on tomorrow, there will be literally fear for his life. He has been


to Guy's Hospital today, but the officials there could do nothing for him, because there are too many people in this situation.
How can an hon. Member raise what is literally a matter of life and death, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The House has been deeply moved by what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is one of the human illustrations of the seriousness of power cuts. We have already dealt with the method of raising the matter.

Mr. Orme: I recognise that the Leader of the House has said that he will consider the possibility of a statement being made later today or tomorrow, but I regard this as a matter of urgency and I think that we ought to have a statement today from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about this matter. The Leader of the House ought to communicate that view to his right hon. Friend. The matter is of such urgency that the House ought to discus it and we should be told what, if anything, the Government are doing to mitigate the situation.

Mr. Speaker: The point which the hon. Member has made was put equally succinctly and powerfully by his right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).

Mr. Thorpe: Arising from your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that as we are about to have a debate on the Adjournment, any subject may be raised, may I ask what protection the House will have, in the event that the subject of the electricity industry is one of the matters raised during the course of the debate, for ensuring that the appropriate Minister will be present?

Mr. Speaker: If that should happen, I am sure that the appropriate Minister will be present.

Mr. Molloy: On a point of order. May I point out that the Leader of the House is responsible primarily to the House rather than the Government? As the Minister involved has been making provocative, biased and unhelpful statements—[Interruption.]—if that were not the truth, hon. Members opposite would not be yelping—on wireless and television, ought he not at least to come to

the House of Commons and have the courage to face the Opposition and explain his behaviour, which is causing so much damage in this industrial dispute?

Mr. Speaker: That is the same point put a little more emotionally.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that for the last 90 minutes the daylight has been shining only on the just in the House while the guilty men opposite have been lurking in the shadows? Would it not be convenient for the House and helpful to the country if we now changed sides so that the country could be run properly?

Mr. Speaker: A similar thought about one side of the House being in darkness occurred to me earlier. I am the only man who dare not express it.

Mr. Callaghan: I think that it would be the desire of most hon. Members to avoid a ragged debate on foreign affairs. However, it will be possible for various matters of great importance to be raised. May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman now reconsiders the matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I am putting a point for the good order of our business today. [Interruption.] I am addressing myself to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the Government. In order that we may have a sensible and coherent debate on foreign affairs, may I suggest that at some stage, suitable and convenient to the Government and the House, we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? I believe that those hon. Members who are concerned, as we all are, about the position in the electricity supply industry would then be able to restrain the comments which might otherwise be interposed in a foreign affairs debate. That would enable us to proceed in an orderly manner. I make the suggestion in the interests of good business.

Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order. It is a fact that the House asked for this debate on foreign affairs. It is a fact that the House wants this debate on foreign affairs. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is in the interests of the House as a whole that there should now be a debate on foreign affairs as requested. If, in order to help, a statement would be appropriate at, say, the


end of the debate at ten o'clock, I will look into that possibility. It would be wrong for me to guarantee it, but I will look into the possibility and see whether it would be appropriate. It seems to be a reasonable way to proceed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We ought to be moving on.

Mr. Thorpe: Further to that point of order. The Leader of the House is not seized of the feelings of the House in all quarters—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—in all quarters. Although some may take different views from others, no one has presumed to speak on behalf of the whole House, particularly not on behalf of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis).
As in these matters the House wishes to give the Leader of the House as much flexibility as possible, bearing in mind the useful precedent of the announcement made about the two-tier value of gold in the last Parliament, when ample opportunity was afforded for supplementary questions to the Minister concerned, which the House found helpful, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of continuing the debate on foreign affairs until, say, seven or eight o'clock and thereafter having a statement by the appropriate Minister with adequate opportunity for supplementary questions? I do not press the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer on that at this stage, but I think that the House would be grateful to him if he were prepared at least to give sympathetic consideration to that formula.

Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order. I will give sympathetic consideration to any propositions which may be put and which the House wishes to have put, because that is my job. I was asked by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to seek to prevent a ragged debate on foreign affairs. I think that mine was the best proposal in all the circumstances for preventing a ragged debate on foreign affairs. Many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen wish to speak in that debate and I should have

thought that my suggestion was the best means of preventing a ragged debate on foreign affairs—I do not know of any other. However, I will consider all other possibilities.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. I am reluctant to raise this point of order, Mr. Speaker, but on this side of the House hon. Members have sat for the last half an hour without raising points of order. In case that is misunderstood, in case it is thought that our not raising points of order means that we do not have points of view, I now seek to express a point of view.

Mr. Speaker: No points of view, only points of order.

Mr. Lewis: This is a point of order.
There are many hon. Members on this side of the House who, in spite of what has been said, do not think that there should be a statement on the electricity supply crisis this day. We had a statement yesterday and we think that after the Minister has contemplated the matter for 24 hours, it will be enough to have a statement tomorrow. In case my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House assumes from the questions in the last half an hour that a majority of hon. Members favour having a statement today, I wish to say that I at least do not think that a statement is necessary at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House will have noted the hon. Gentleman's contribution.

Mr. Bob Brown: Further to that point of order. It is evident that the House wants to get on with the foreign affairs debate and it is equally evident that the House wants to do so uninterrupted. Would not the simple way out of this be for the Prime Minister to give an assurance to the House that he will get on the telephone to both sides in the electricity industry and say that he is removing his ridiculous 10 per cent. veto to let them start negotiations and settle the dispute?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. Mr. Dalyell.

MEDICAL INSPECTION (EVIDENCE OF DRUG-TAKING) (SCHOOL PUPILS)

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower local authorities, with the consent of the medical officer of health of the county or county borough concerned, to authorise medical inspection of pupils in attendance at any school maintained by them to be conducted without notice given to the said pupils or to their parents or guardians.
It is a marvellous thing about British parliamentary democracy that sandwiched between these vitally important issues and foreign affairs an hon. Member can intervene with a Ten-Minute Rule Bill, and I will do so as succinctly—[Interruption.]—as I can—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman deserves to be allowed to proceed at once in view of his ingenuity.

Mr. Dalyell: This is a modest Measure to give local authorities on the advice of their medical officers of health, the power to carry out urine tests on school pupils for analysis in a laboratory and for urine collection at school as evidence of drug taking. In making this proposal, I am motivated by two sets of circumstances. First, I am one of a number of Members from outside London and the Midlands to whom the problems of drug-taking in our constituencies are relatively new and who have been shaken out of our complacency. Going round seven Scottish universities and training colleges in October, I was told on six occasions that any politician who was not aware that significant soft drug taking was occurring in certain of our secondary schools was burying his head in the sand like an ostrich.
Secondly, as his P.P.S., I went on Ministerial visits with my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). Not 10 miles from here in drug addict centres in East London I saw—including death—the most harrowing sights I have ever seen—these 15 and 25-years-old mooning around hooked on the hard stuff, with a 10–20 per cent. chance of cure.
In this Bill there is an underlying assumption, which ought to be laid bare,

namely, that much misery can be avoided if only parents and doctors had early knowledge, for example, of amphetamine-taking. I put it to the House that drugs are rather different from alcohol. If a youngster returns home having had a beer or two at least his parents know what he has been up to. With drugs it is different. Drugs are far more insidious in that youngsters have often gone a long way along the road to damage before parents and teachers suspect. Therefore the early warning system, which is what the Bill is all about, is all the more necessary.
It would not only be stupidly dishonest but futile if I did not say candidly to the House that there are difficult issues.
There is the question of whether it would be better to let sleeping dogs lie. Yet, no young person who watches television or reads the newspapers can be exactly unaware of the fact that drug taking in our society is a widespread activity. In a situation where one teenage idol after another has appeared in court on drug offences, many medical officers of health tell us that it is essential to get information about what is suspected in certain areas to be little more than the tip of the iceberg.
Then there is the issue of the mechanics of testing. I am told by Professor Arnold Beckett of Chelsea College, Professor of Pharmacy, and Dr. Henry Matthew of the Drugs Unit of the Royal Infirmary that detection of amphetamine present no problems; barbiturates no problem; narcotics, in general, no problem. Heroin is more difficult to detect. As for cannabis, there are problems at present but the Working Party on Biochemical and Pharmacological Aspects of Drug Dependence, under Professor Paton, states:
It is likely that the position of cannabis will change, since unpublished work indicates that a metabolite appears in the urine in reasonable amounts.
As for L.S.D.—and lesser humanised problems—there are problems not likely to be solved in the immediate future.
Then there is the issue of the collection of samples. Expressing only their personal opinion, because there is no association policy, senior officials of the N.U.T., the E.I.S. and the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association have told me that they do not foresee too much


resistance to the collection of urine in the schools, provided that it is done by a school medical officer and assistant nurses, not by teachers. If it could be done in conjunction with what we might call some non-moral purpose involving no criminal overtones, such as diabetes testing, so much the better. Certainly testing through schools of an age group is infinitely to be preferred to the random search in the streets which is deeply resented by most young people who feel that society is picking on them and their sub-culture.
There are delicate problems of the liberty of the individual in terms of subsequent action. I respect the doubts of some of my hon. Friends who have declined to support my Bill on liberty and freedom grounds. In a sense they are right. This Bill in a small way curtails liberty. That cannot be concealed. Balanced on the other side of the scales is the fact that such a Bill is the only way to detect people at risk through drug taking at an early enough stage when something can be done. This is a value judgment and all I can say to hon. Members is that since this is a complex balance of conflicting freedoms "please do not kill the Bill at an early stage before parliamentary discussion can take place."
There is the issue of the legal consequences and senior police officers to whom I have talked are reluctant to emphasise the rôle of the police in the early stages. So, indeed, are many of us. If, for example, amphetamines are found in the urine it does not follow that the donor can be had up on a charge of possession nor, indeed, are there grounds for the police to search for possession. Again it would be for the House, if leave is given, to reflect whether the police should have the power to look at laboratory records.
The issues of possession are complicated, involving a recent legal case before Lord Chief Justice Parker, Mr. Justice Waller, Mr. Justice Fisher of Hambleton versus Callinan, Fumier, Farrier and Graham.
There is also the question of privacy. If positive results were registered by the person, who should be told and to what use should the information be put? If the House gives leave, this would be a matter

to be dealt with in Committee. My inclination is to go along with the advice I have received from the doctors from the Maudsley Hospital to the effect that information should be given to parents, to the echool medical authorities and probably headmasters. Teachers might be told of the percentage of positive results in their school.
On this issue the Deputy Secretary of the B.M.A. in charge of this matter, Dr. Hitchcock, has expressed interesting, though unofficial views to me.
There is the question of whether such a Bill would make it easier for young people to communicate with adults about drugs. Very often a 15 to 18-year-old will go to a teacher and say, "I am very worried. My friend is taking drugs. What should I do about it?" "Who is your friend?" is the obvious reply from the teacher. "Won't tell." "Where is he getting the drugs?" "Won't tell." If a pupil knew that the adult world was aware of who was taking drugs I contend that it would be easier for them to help each other.
In asking for leave to bring in the Bill, I am making no attempt to foist on hon. Members propositions which require more thought. After talking to the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), and the former Secretary of State for Education and Science, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short), and to the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), all of whom have been more than helpful, I am convinced that it would be wrong to insert the phrase
without consent of parent and guardian".
I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) that a positive purpose would be served by bidding for parental cooperation at the beginning of the school year, even if it means that some youngsters refuse to give samples.
This is a malleable Bill. In dealing with drug sub-culture, there is no black and white but various shades of grey. The only point to which I am passionately committed is the belief that the House of Commons would not be wasting its time if it gave an opportunity for the


Bill to be discussed at further stages and faced an urgent and unpleasant problem which it is no use blinking.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I ask the House to refuse my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) leave to introduce the Bill. In view of the business which is to follow, I hope that I shall take less time in stating my opposition to it than my hon. Friend did in asking for leave to introduce it.
My hon. Friend has put a number of excellent proposals to the House in the past, but this is not a proposal which should be supported. Unless the words on the Order Paper, namely,
to authorise medical inspection of pupils in attendance at any school maintained by them to be conducted without notice given to the said pupils or to their parents or guardians"—
and the last point about parents and guardians is particularly important—are in the Bill, the Bill is worthless.
My hon. Friend accepts that there are objections to his proposals as outlined on the Order Paper, which is what we have to make a decision on. We are not concerned with what might or might not be in the Bill. As a precaution, my hon. Friend has put on the Amendment Paper for the Misuse of Drugs Bill tonight a series of Amendments which would cover his point. He said that danger to life and liberty was involved. No one under-estimates the problem in any school.
Apart from my fundamental objection that the proposed Bill would apply to a limited range of schools and pupils—it would be better if it applied to students at colleges and university, but it is not proposed that it should—my fundamental objection and reason for asking the House to reject the Motion is that it would take away the responsibilities of the parents towards their children. Under the Bill, any medical officer of health could decide to go to any State controlled and maintained school and say, without any reference to the parents or

guardians, "I want an inspection of the children to be carried out". The fundamental principle of the matter is this: no one touches my children without my prior knowledge or consent, or there is likely to be trouble.
It is not suggested that the children have committed a crime. We have previously objected in the House to random testing. We had a lengthy debate when the Misuse of Drugs Bill was being discussed about the power of the police to stop and even search unless they had some reasonable grounds for believing that a crime had been committed. The proposed Bill is a perfect example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian will agree to withdraw his Motion so that the matter can better be discussed later tonight on the Misuse of Drugs Bill. If he feels unable to do that, then I shall ask the House to divide.

Question put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. MCNAMARA and Dr. MILLER were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dalyell, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Fernyhough, Dr. Dickson Mabon, Dr. Miller, Mr. William Price, Mr. Richard, Mrs. Renée Short, Dr. Summerskill, Mr. Taverne and Mr. Walden.

MEDICAL INSPECTION (EVIDENCE OF DRUG-TAKING) (SCHOOL PUPILS)

Bill to empower local authorities, with the consent of the medical officer of health of the county or county borough concerned, to authorise medical inspection of pupils in attendance at any school maintained by them to be conducted without notice given to the said pupils or to their parents or guardians, presented accordingly, and read the First time to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

Mr. Bernard Conlan: On a point of order. In view of the prevailing conditions in the Chamber—the situation is not so bad as long as we have daylight, but in the evening it will get far worse—I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to accept that Motion. I appreciate the difficulties under which the House is working. There may come a time when the difficulties become insuperable, but I think that the whole House would wish to carry on with the business. The House has carried on in worse conditions in the past, and I think that it would wish to carry on now as long as it is practically possible.

4.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): Mr. Speaker, I will try, at any rate, to begin.
A foreign affairs debate on the Adjournment without a particular theme is almost an invitation to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to do a kind of Cook's tour round the world. Nevertheless, I think that it is our experience in this House that debates of this kind are rather difficult to conduct, are diffuse, and are not very satisfactory. I will try, therefore, to concentrate what I have to say, first, on the events in Vietnam, because that, I think, was originally the Opposition's request—had we had either an Order Paper or light I think that there would have been a Motion on the Order Paper by some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite on certain political aspects concerned with Vietnam—and, secondly, on some of those areas in which the pattern of international relations for better or for worse shows signs of change.
The British interest in the Vietnam conflict is clear. It is that, as soon as possible, there should be a peace which

is just and will contribute to the political stability and security of South-East Asia.
We are not, of course, engaged in the war itself; but in the context of the British interest, which is peace—a peace which will confer the right to self-determination, independence and security—it is well to remember and for the House to recall the proposals which President Nixon has lately advanced in search of these objectives.
On 7th October President Nixon put forward the following proposals: an "unconditional" cease-fire, which could be discussed separately from the rest of the proposals; an Indo-China peace conference; a negotiated timetable for the complete withdrawal of United States forces from South Vietnam; a political settlement in South Vietnam which would reflect the will of the South Vietnamese people and the existing relationship of political forces; and the immediate and unconditional surrender of all prisoners of war.
I think that it is now North Vietnam's choice; and it is hard to see any justification for the abrupt rejection of such terms which was given in Paris by the Government of North Vietnam.
In particular, I should like to call the attention of the House to the third of President Nixon's proposals: a negotiated timetable for the complete withdrawal of United States forces from Vietnam. Withdrawal as we understand it is the aim also of the North Vietnamese Government. President Nixon has offered to meet that desire on an agreed timetable. It is there that Britain could help if the Communists would allow us to do so.
When Mr. Gromyko was in London a few weeks ago I asked him if he, as co-Chairman, would join me in reconvening the Geneva Conference which, the House will remember, has never been stood down since 1962 and exists for the purpose of trying to co-ordinate peaceful relations in South-East Asia. I pointed out to him that the reconvening of this conference would be the most certain way of achieving an orderly programme of withdrawal, which all of us want to to see and which President Nixon has offered, of all foreign forces from South Vietnam. In that way, Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia can then assume that rôle of non-alignment, which I remember very


well at the Conferences in 1954 and 1962 was agreed by all to be the political solution which served the characters of those nations best and, indeed, was in the interests of all in that part of the world.
So far the Soviet Government have declined to act with us in recalling this conference. The Russian answer is that the time is not appropriate. I should have thought that when President Nixon's offer was on the table, that there should be a negotiated settlement and that the object should be the orderly withdrawal of foreign troops from South Vietnam, that time was more appropriate than any I remember for a good long time. I can see no valid reason for allowing this war to continue when it could be ended by negotiation which we and the Russians together, if there is the necessary will, have the power to set in motion because we can recall this conference.
The plain fact is that the South Vietnamese and the Americans are ready to negotiate, and in the terms which I have described have put forward what, on the face of it, seems a reasonable basis—without pre-conditions. It is, therefore, within the power of the North Vietnamese Government today to start the process which could end this war.
Meanwhile, the United States Government continues the withdrawal of American troops and intensifies the policy of Vietnamisation of which, on all the evidence, the South Vietnamese are taking full advantage. Substantial areas of the country have, during the last few months, been brought under the Government's control. Villages are now defended by the villagers themselves with Home Guards; and measures for economic and social welfare are at last having a chance to make their impact.
But there is no doubt that this war continues, although on a lower scale, and war is cruel. There is, however, one aspect of it in which one would have hoped that humanity could now prevail. While South Vietnam grants access to the six prisoner-of-war camps which they run both to the International Red Cross and to other interested parties, the North Vietnamese persist in saying that their prisoners are not entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention on prisoners-of-war. If the Government of Hanoi, there-

fore, will not join in releasing all prisoners unconditionally, as President Nixon has asked and offered, and will not treat those they hold in accordance with the international rules of behaviour prescribed, it is scarcely for others to object when the Americans seek, by military means, to release those who are held.
I repeat that Britain's sole concern in this war is with peace and the organisation of a cease-fire and then with a peace negotiation. We are ready at any time—I renew my offer to the Soviet Foreign Minister—to use our influence and the status conferred on us by the Geneva Conference to act in favour of negotiation, because that is the only way in which real peace will come to this area.
I will not this afternoon speak of the agreement of the five Commonwealth countries that there should be a joint military presence in Malaysia and Singapore. That decision has been welcomed in both those countries. The House knows that we believe that it will be a contribution to general confidence and to stability and will give an opportunity to both Malaysia and Singapore to build up their own security forces unmolested from outside. I will leave that matter, because we have debated it before and we shall doubtless do so again.
In contrast to the position of South-East Asia and with some relief, without being complacent, I should like to turn to Europe—in this century, of course, the cockpit of the worst wars that the world has seen—where at long last, at least in the west of the continent, and, I should hope, further afield, the lesson seems to be slowly but surely being learned that peace is in fact indivisible.
To achieve the position that we have reached today in regard to negotiations within the continent of Europe, some very dramatic changes have already had to be accomplished in political thought and action. Before any advance could be made in the direction of harmonising the foreign policies of the countries of Western Europe, France and Germany had to resolve their historic quarrel. I have thought, and said so before, that this is so far the one decisive event in Europe since the war. This was done by two great leaders of authority, Dr. Adenauer and General de Gaulle, and all the peoples of Western Europe are deeply


in their debts for achieving this new relationship between these two countries.
It is from that basis that these two countries have now become the twin pillars of the Economic Community which with their partners they have brought to such active life. Not only do they not regret their decision but the partnership is considered by both the French and the Germans and all Members of the Six to be the most exciting political venture on which any of their countries have been engaged in their history.
Political co-operation in Europe is in its infancy. It is quite clear that none of the Six, or the Four if we join up as Ten, will rush into new political institutions; the evolution will be slow. But last week I attended the first meeting for political consultation of the Six with the four applicants. We discussed together the problems of the Middle East, East-West relations in general between Western Europe and the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, and the Federal Republic of Germany's policies towards Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. We sat together to exchange views and to try to co-ordinate our approach to these important questions—questions which are as topical to our friends and allies in Europe as they are to ourselves. It seemed—and I can testify to this—not only natural but inevitable that the ten countries should sit down and discuss these questions.
The advantages of co-ordinating foreign policies in Western Europe are, I believe, more and more widely recognised; and certainly the meeting last week was regarded by all as an historic step. I need not remind the House that the arrangements for meetings of the Ten to follow separate meetings of the Six and Four are temporary. Only as full members of an enlarged Community shall we be able to make our full contribution to the political as well as to the economic work of the Community. I know that this is a matter on which a number of people in this House have different opinions. In both these fields in relation to the Community's activities we now have a chance to influence each other's thinking and an opportunity to play our part in deciding with them the rôle which

Europe and her separate constituent nations is to play in the world of today.
A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House perhaps are sceptical about the value of these political consultations. I can only say that my experience is that they are immensely valuable. Looking to the future, I am bound to say that I would not like to see a situation developing in which the United States takes some of the great decisions which are to be taken in the world, the Soviet Union takes its decisions in the world, and the continent of Europe takes its decisions, but in regard to none of those three areas would Britain have the possibility of influencing opinion to the same extent as we would if we were inside the Community and talking with them on these great political issues.

Mr. Neil Marten: If we were inside the Community, what difference would there be in regard to the question of consultation about foreign affairs? The sort of consultation which my right hon. Friend has just had, and of which I fully approve, is fine and we should go on with it, but the alternative in a democratic Europe is to have a Parliament of Europe with elected members to debate foreign affairs and then to take a majority vote at the end of that debate. That is what a lot of people do not like.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My hon. Friend is looking a long way ahead.

Mr. Marten: Certainly I am.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We should all try to look as far ahead as we can, but if we are not a member of the Community the consultations would take place among the Six, and the Six alone, and we should not be a party to them probably until it is too late. We could take part in various discussions in N.A.T.O., but the ability to take part in that Community of Ten would not be there.

Mr. Peter Shore: Could the Foreign Secretary say how the present d'Avignon type of proposal for consultation in the Six on foreign policy and other matters differs from the consultations that we are used to in Western European Union?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The consultations that we are used to in W.E.U. are of considerable value; but the right hon. Gentleman must remember that unless we are a member of the Community, the Six will constantly be sitting together week in and week out working out their joint policies on the large political questions of the day. We should not therefore be in on those discussions at all. This is the weakness in which we should find ourselves.
The first step towards this full involvement is membership of the Economic Community. My right hon. Friend was yesterday engaged in talks in Brussels and will be reporting to the House tomorrow. Therefore, I would not wish now to enter into the details in advance of his statement; but the House will wish to know that he proposed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that there should be a transitional period of five years for adaptation in both industry and agriculture, and for adaptation to the Communities' rules regarding capital movements and fiscal harmonisation. In doing so he stressed that we thought it essential that within the common period of five years effective provision should be made for arriving at, to quote the Community's own phrase, "a mutual balance of advantage." The proposal was well received in Brussels. My right hon. Friend also suggested some general considerations which we thought should govern the application to us of the Communities' system of financing and said that we should be making detailed proposals as soon as possible. We were confident that the Communities would await these proposals before taking any position themselves on this most important question.
Last week at the meeting of the three allies and Germany over Berlin and at the meeting of the Ten—

Mr. Douglas Jay: May I put one more question to the right hon. Gentleman before he leaves this issue? Could he make clear what his right hon. Friend has not yet made clear, whether or not the Government accept the far-reaching proposals of currency units and fixed exchange rates which have now been accepted by the Six as an objective?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: These proposals have not been officially conveyed

to us. We are anxious to hand in our own note on the implications of the financial policy before we officially receive anything from the Commission, and I hope that will be so.
I was saying that at the meeting of the three allies and Germany over Berlin, at the meeting of the Ten and of the N.A.T.O. Council of Ministers, there was a close identity of view on the "Ostpolitik" pursued by the Federal Republic of Germany. There was unanimous recognition that the Federal Republic had made a positive move towards a more constuctive coexistence by the treaties promoted with the Soviet Union and with Poland and those in prospect with other Eastern European countries.
Just as the reconciliation between Germany and France has formed the basis for co-operation in Western Europe, it may not be too fanciful to believe that the process of reconciliation between West Germany and the countries of the Warsaw Pact could form the foundation of a new and more secure relationship between East and West Europe. This must be our hope.
So far, however, we were bound to record at all these meetings that the effort for conciliation has been made by Federal Germany and by the West; and, although fair words have been spoken, there has not as yet been any movement on substance by the Soviet Union in relation to Berlin or any hard evidence that East Germany is willing for a relationship with West Germany of "give and take".
The ability of the Soviet Union to create conditions which provide for freedom of access to and from Berlin is undoubted. It could do it at any time, and the opportunity is wide open for the Soviet Union to do it now. The onus must now be firmly on the Soviet and East German Governments to respond to the approaches and suggestions that have been made.
I think it as well for the House to recognise the essential conditions for an agreement. They are these. The four-Power status of the City of Berlin should not be called in question. The Soviet Union and the allies should shoulder the responsibility of sponsoring and underwriting the concessions which the East


Germans and the West Germans are asked to make to ease the existing tensions.
Closely related to Berlin and the situation as between the two halves of the City of Berlin has been the question whether or not a "security conference" would be of benefit to Europe, an idea put forward by some of the Eastern European countries and by Finland supported by others, and the Soviet Union. There are some attractions to such a concept; not the least is that the voices of the neutrals might help to dilute the rigid confrontation which there has been between N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact for many years.
The representatives of the Allies directly concerned with Berlin, as well as those who attended the meeting of the Ten and the N.A.T.O. Council, felt that at the present time—and I emphasise this—it was useless to proceed to create another piece of machinery for conciliation in Europe when that which exists for reconciliation is not being used by the Soviet Union and East Germany.
Once the will is demonstrated to improve the existing arrangements for Berlin so that movement between the Federal Republic and Berlin is free and circulation between the two halves of the city is improved so that life in Berlin is once again tolerable for its citizens, then the preparation for a security conference could begin, and the nature of it and its function could be established.

Mr. Frank Allaun: For a long time a number of people and a number of countries have been pressing for this conference. Until now the question of Berlin has never been mentioned. Suddenly the issue of Berlin is being mentioned as yet another reason for not having this conference. It seems like an excuse that is being brought in at the last moment.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think that that is so, because the opportunity is there now, and it is wide open for the Soviet Union to show some signs that it is willing to ease the tension in Eastern Europe and in particular in Berlin. It is not much use setting up another body for reconciliation when the opportunity is right there before the Soviet Union, if it wants to take it, to demonstrate that it

is willing to ease tension between the Warsaw Pact area and N.A.T.O., and particularly in the City of Berlin. The opportunity is there and if the Soviet Union were ready to take it we should be ready to get on with the preparation of a conference, to establish its function, and what it would do, which is not quite clear at the present time. Our own approach will be one of readiness to discuss the things that really matter to Europe, and a determination to achieve improvements in East-West relationships wherever we can find scope to do it.
When one measures the Russians' military deployment, in terms of numbers, in terms of modern equipment and in the state of her readiness for war, it becomes clear that the need for Allied strength in Europe is undiminished. That is why there has been anxiety in Europe about the growing pressures upon the United States Defence Budget, and the conclusion has been drawn that in years to come Europe must expect to bear a greater share of the burden of our common defence. Britain already carries a substantial proportion—on N.A.T.O.'s calculation 5·8 per cent. of our gross national product. Nevertheless, we decided this autumn, as the House is aware, to increase the forces we contribute which are particularly relevant to N.A.T.O.'s current needs. In particular, we are prolonging the life of the "Ark Royal" in service, and we shall be committing to N.A.T.O. further squadrons of strike/attack aircraft. Our allies are making contributions, some of them financial; and altogether these efforts add up to a substantial step towards a healthier balance in the Alliance. This kind of progress will help the United States Government to sustain its own defence effort in Europe.
In terms of the security of Western Europe, I cannot over-emphasise the importance of the message which the President of the United States sent to the N.A.T.O. Council last week, which no doubt the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has seen and noted. The President said that given this increased effort in Europe there will be no reduction in American forces in Europe until there are reciprocal reductions by the other side. That was a most important and significant message sent by the President.
Whether "mutual balanced force reductions" are ripe for discussion at a security conference or some other organ now it is difficult to say, but the House should recognise the difficulties inherent in this matter. N.A.T.O. forces are already so heavily out-numbered that, to preserve a balance with the Warsaw Pact, the Warsaw Pact countries would have to make a reduction on a much larger scale than we would. The Soviet Government have proposed the withdrawal of foreign troops; but there is a world of difference between withdrawing American troops across the Atlantic to the United States and merely putting the Russian troops now in Eastern Europe back behind the Soviet frontier.
It is the extent of such real difficulties as those which I think make it very necessary not to allow a snowball to start rolling towards intensified negotiations with the East until we see more tangible evidence that they are ready for genuine measures of détante. There is—and one must say this to the House—an extraordinary difficulty always in negotiating with the Soviet Union, and this has been emphasised in recent months. It is graphically illustrated by what happened immediately after the standstill arrangement on the Suez Canal, and by what happened in the Berlin air corridor late one night when, by reason of the fact that the Soviet Union said it was to be closed, the United States and ourselves had to take military action to send a plane through at about two hours' notice in the middle of the night—not much fun for the Governments who have to take that kind of decision.
It is illustrated, too, by the delays during the last week on the Berlin autobahn, and by the situation in the Cuban waters where a nuclear submarine depot ship is parading while the S.A.L.T. talks are in progress. In addition, there is the close shadowing which lately has been much intensified by Soviet naval vessels of our ships on manoeuvres, or wherever they may be, which is calculated, almost to a certainty, to produce the accident that it did.
We have to take account of all that. They have the means available for reconciliation if they wish to use them, and we must continue that but one has to remember all the time when negotiating

with the Soviet Union that there is this duality. They are prepared to take these risks while they are negotiating. This makes the task extremely difficult and one must be sure that one has the result one wants before concluding arrangements. Nevertheless, the allies have renewed their invitation to the Soviet Union to talk and we have made an offer again to discuss with them mutual balanced force reductions.
There is one particular aspect of Soviet policy which is causing the Western allies increasing anxiety. It has been particularly apparent in N.A.T.O. It is the rapid expansion and range of operation of the Soviet Navy in the Atlantic and Mediterranean areas, for which the N.A.T.O. Alliance is directly responsible.
Only last year the right hon. Member for Leeds, East measured the Soviet threat in the Mediterranean by saying that in the event of war, all the Soviet ships would be sunk within minutes, before even having a chance to fire their guns. That was true then, when Soviet air cover was less extensive, but it is not true any longer, and that is how the Soviet Union has changed the balance of power in the Mediterranean.
Today the Soviet Union not only has the full use of ports on the littoral of the Mediterranean, but also airfields on Egyptian soil from which it can cover the operations of its fleet in this area. Therefore, not only is it true to say that a new flank has been created for N.A.T.O., it is equally true to say that a new front has been created for N.A.T.O. in recent months.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: While appreciating the undoubted threat to N.A.T.O.'s southern flank by the Soviet presence there, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to elucidate the motives of the Soviet Union? For example, how far is this a positive push by them into that area and how far does it result from the entreaties of the Egyptians for air protection, including of their capitals, following Israeli Phantom raids?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: One must recognise that whichever explanation one gives, the Soviet Union is using Egyptian soil to cover its naval operations in the Mediterranean. This must be recognised. N.A.T.O. has already had to react and will have to continue to react further.
The programme of rapid expansion is continuing. The evidence is clear—I will not develop this theme today, because there will be other opportunities to do that—that the Soviet means to reproduce the pattern in the Indian Ocean where it has the opportunity to establish superiority.
I have told the House of the Soviet shadowing of British naval vessels, which has for some time been a hazard to safe navigation. I have had to lodge—I believe that hon. Members will be aware of this—a protest with the Russian Government about this because we could not delay it any longer, since it was becoming so dangerous. The free range of the seas is essential to Britain's survival and we and our allies are bound to react in prudence to this expansion of the Soviet Navy.
It is not that the Soviet Union will sink British or allied ships—that is, unless it means to make war. But the policy options of the West can be closed one by one unless the West is prepared to have an active presence in the oceans. The position would then be that the West would be able to pursue its policies only by leave of the Soviet Union, and we would be in a situation where the sole alternatives could be capitulation or war. We must continue a policy of seeking conciliation, but the Government have no intention of allowing themselves to be put in the position of facing, in circumstances one cannot foresee, the stark alternatives of capitulation or war.
The situation in the Mediterranean naturally leads me to close with some reflections on the Middle East. After the obstinate deadlock and periodic outbreaks of fighting in the Arab-Israel dispute, nobody can be an optimist. However, it may not be too fanciful to hope that, after recent events and after the spectre raised by the Syrian invasion of Jordan opening up a much wider war, both Arabs and Jews now see more clearly than they did the imperative need to work towards a negotiated settlement, because the only alternative is an endless war.
The machinery for the beginning of contact is there. Resolution 242 survives, unaffected by recent debates at the United

Nations, as an acceptable basis for both sides. It has been accepted by both sides, so that we start with an advantage as far as that resolution is concerned. Dr. Jarring is ready—he must be the most patient man on earth—to resume the peace talks, when the opportunity offers.
The stubbornness of the problems is real; how to achieve agreement in giving effect to the twin principles of Resolution 242, the withdrawal on the one hand by Israel, and recognition and commitments to live at peace, on the other, by the Arabs; how to secure justice for the refugees and give Israel security comparable to that which it now enjoys by reason of its own strength. Unless that can be achieved there will be no peace.
It is true that confidence, already minimal, has been reduced to a minus quantity by the breaches of the standstill agreement. Nevertheless, I think the reasons for negotiating are now compelling because the only future that either side has to look forward to if there is no negotiated settlement is war, an end to which nobody can see.

Mr. Conlon: In view of the obvious breaches of the cease-fire on the western bank of the Canal, and in view of the preconditions being attached by Israel in relation to the Golan Heights and so on, has not a case now been made out for the introduction of a United Nations force to keep the two sides apart?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is a nice idea, but I am afraid that it will not get very far in that a United Nations force could be introduced only by the agreement of the two sides. I do not despair of this. As I say, circumstances are arising in which both sides are seriously thinking in terms of separation, of demilitarised zones and how these things should be organised. These are immensely complex questions and of one thing I am certain; that nobody from outside can dictate the terms of a settlement in this dispute. Britain is ready at all times to help, whether within the four-Power discussions in New York or outside, in the pursuit of peace.
There are, of course, many other subjects which a foreign affairs debate could embrace. My right hon. Friend will be


prepared to answer any points that are raised by hon. Members on other subjects. We will have further opportunities to debate them, including, of course, the progress of our negotiations with the E.E.C., our policies in relation to South Africa, the Indian Ocean and the Middle East.
The matters which I have raised today are those which concern not only ourselves but our Allies and in which there is a widespread desire to see reconciliation replace enmity and the threat of war—and therefore matters in which it is, I think, possible to find a basis for peace.
If détente could replace tension between the Soviet Union and the European allies—between N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact countries—and if there could be the beginnings of a settlement in the Middle East, the effects of this reconciliation would be felt instantly and far and wide in the world at large.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Denis Healey: As the Foreign Secretary said, a debate of this nature invariably tempts one to range far and wide. I will try in the main, to follow the pattern of subjects with which the right hon. Gentleman opened.
I will not comment on what he said about recent developments in our negotiations with Europe because I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to make a detailed statement tomorrow, and I hope that we will have an extended debate in the new year. This being so, one is at some disadvantage in raising some of the points which the Foreign Secretary picked out in connection with the Chancellor's recent activities without having the full statement.
I am slightly tempted to say a word about Anguilla in the light of the disastrous meeting between the Minister of State and Mr. Bradshaw the other day. I hope that meeting left him a little less vainglorious than he was about the ability of the Government in Britain to improve the situation 4,000 miles away. He will agree now that this problem is, as it always was, a very difficult one on which to make progress.
The two overriding problems, as always, are relations between East and West and relations between North and South. I hope we can have a full debate

on North-South relations after the meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in Singapore, which I imagine will, in the main, be devoted to this problem. There have been reports recently that the views of Her Majesty's Government on the main topic for discussion at that conference have been affected by the views which Commonwealth Governments have given them in recent consultations. I hope that this is true. If at last Ministers are coming to terms with realities in Africa, I would not want to risk disturbing the evolution of their thought by anything I say.
On North-South relations I would make only two points. When we discussed the invasion of Guinea the other day, the Foreign Secretary accused me of letting my imagination run wild when I asked whether it was possible that this was an episode rather like the Bay of Pigs some years ago. But as the Foreign Secretary and the House will know, the mission set up by the United Nations has found that Portugal was indeed behind the recent invasion of Guinea and that she used frigates and other maritime weapons for this purpose.
As I understand it, the British delegate to the Security Council yesterday did not dissent from a resolution passed by the Security Council to this effect. I ask the Foreign Secretary to consider seriously whether he could blame any African Government for fearing that South Africa might make similar use of maritime equipment provided to her. Even if he cannot agree with this feeling on the side of African Governments, will be accept it as a fact, as it undoubtedly is? Will he recognise not only the danger to British political, military and economic interests in that continent in the longer run, if the Government were to persist in their present intention, but the risk even to British lives and property in certain African countries in the short run, in the immediate aftermath of an announcement of a decision to proceed as previously planned.
My other point on North-South relations is that there is growing evidence that the Africans and the Asians and, to a large extent, the peoples of South America regard the cold war between East and West as a monumental irrelevance and do not want to be caught up in it. The elections in Pakistan in the last day or


two have been a most important illustration of that. It is difficult to see Pakistan remaining a member of the Central or South-East Asia Treaty Organisations if the members of the new Government continue to hold the views which they have undoubtedly held till now.
The Foreign Secretary must have noticed that Malaysia and Singapore also have committed themselves to nonalignment in world affairs. Both attended the recent conference of non-aligned countries, not as observers but as members, and the new Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Razak, has made it very clear that a significant shift in Malaysia's policy is likely to follow his assumption of office. I ask the Foreign Secretary to consider whether he is sure that the Five-Power defence presence really makes sense in the Far East if two of the countries concerned are committed to nonalignment and the other three are fully committed to the Western camp in the East-West struggle.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: Is it not a fact that the two countries committed to non-alignment are certainly not committed to non-alignment in regard to self-defence, and that this is essentially a five-Power defensive pact?

Mr. Healey: That is a matter on which we shall be seeking further elucidation, as will the Foreign Secretary while he is in Singapore. For example, the Malaysian Government asked for a month's delay of a meeting of technical experts which was to have been held in Singapore this week. I cannot escape the feeling that this had something to do with an evolution in the policy in Malaysia which may well have its effect on five-Power relations in the Far East.
Whatever others may think, East-West relations still are of major importance to us in Britain, and I shall concentrate on East-West relations in what else I have to say, as did the Foreign Secretary.
When President Nixon assumed office he said that he believed that the 'seventies would be an era of negotiation. There are many signs that he was right. There have been big changes in many aspects of relations between East and West. Most of the changes—though not all, as the Foreign Secretary pointed out—have been for the better in the last two years.
In the early post-war years, many of us saw the East-West confrontation as primarily a problem of competing ideologies, of monolithic blocs locked in a sort of war of religion. But it has been clear for many years that the political doctrine of a Government is no longer a necessary key to their position in world affairs. There is no longer one Communist bloc in the world. The Communist countries are not united either on internal or on external doctrines. Even Russia's neighbours and allies in Eastern Europe, while accepting the Warsaw Pact as an instrument of security, have a wide diversity of views on foreign policy which they have publicly expressed in recent years. Yugoslavia is neutral. Albania is openly hostile to the Soviet Union. In the Far East, China seems to be divided by at least as wide a gulf from the Soviet Union as she is from the United States. There is much evidence that the Communist Government in North Vietnam feels as uneasy about the Chinese presence on their northern frontier as some East European Communist Governments have felt about the Soviet presence on their eastern frontiers.
I hope that the Minister of State will say a word about the implications for the Government's policy of the impressive and, to us, very welcome vote in the United Nations Assembly on Chinese representation. All of us have long felt that we cannot make a reality either of the United Nations or of any major global international negotiation so long as a quarter of the human race is not there represented. Do the Government believe that the recent simple majority vote has any implications for the position which British Governments have taken till now, that we must regard the question of Chinese representation as requiring a two-thirds rather than a simple majority? I know how difficult it is, and I have no solution to propose in this regard, but can the Minister of State say, assuming that the Communist Government in Peking takes the Chinese seat in the Security Council and in the General Assembly, what solution he envisages to the problem of Taiwan?

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: May I return for a moment to my right hon. Friend's earlier point about the differences within the Communist countries? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that


there were definite signs that the Communist countries were beginning to adopt independent positions, but that there was a setback in that trend following the invasion of Czechoslovakia? Does not this affect our approach to any proposal for a security conference, which must be different from the approach that we would have adopted prior to that situation?

Mr. Healey: I shall deal precisely with that point later in my speech. I do not dissent from anything that my hon. Friend has said.
Before I leave the Far East, I want to ask a few questions about Vietnam, and I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for spending some time on this problem.
In recent years, all America's friends—and I hope that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members on both sides are and will remain America's friends—have been deeply worried by the impact of the Vietnam war on the health of American society and on the course of American politics. I trust that we are all united in hoping that the United States will succeed in disengaging from this tragic predicament as soon as possible. I believe that a disengagement of the United States from Vietnam is profoundly in the interests of the American people and those of the whole Western world.
We all welcome the fact that the fighting seems to be dying down and that casualty figures are very much lower and have been for many months than they were during the peak of the fighting. But equally, like the Foreign Secretary, we on this side deeply deplore the total lack of progress in the Paris talks which aim at a political settlement.
The Foreign Secretary referred to President Nixon's five-point plan, and I was glad to see that he recognised that this directly involved the United Kingdom Government in certain responsibilities which Governments of both parties have always accepted as a matter of national policy. President Nixon seeks a conference on Indo-China as a whole, and there is no doubt that any solution of the Vietnam problem must have implications for Laos and Cambodia which require simultaneous consideration. He seeks it on the basis of the 1954 Geneva Accords of which Britain is one of the trustees and which no American Government previously have accepted as a basis of policy

on the Indo-China affair. If I recall correctly, America was not represented and specifically reserved her right not to be bound by the agreements after they were made by the countries which were actually present in Geneva.
I welcome very much what the Foreign Secretary said about his talks with Mr. Gromyko on this matter and, like the right hon. Gentleman, I regret that Mr. Gromyko was no more ready to respond to his questions than he was to similar questions put by representatives of the Government of which I was a member.
Since Her Majesty's Government now accept a direct responsibility for trying to get the Nixon proposals accepted as a basis for negotiation, can we be told whether we were consulted on the recent resumption of bombing by the United States? I hope that the Minister of State will deal with this point. It would be odd if the American President, having just asked us to assume a major new rôle on behalf of the United States in seeking a political settlement, should not have consulted us on a change of policy of this importance. Many of us in Britain, like many members of the American Senate and House, were profoundly disturbed by some aspects of the bombing resumption, the ambiguity of motive which emerged only slowly after repeated questioning, and the obscurity of its military purpose. It was suggested originally that it was aimed at antiaircraft systems. It is now stated that it was a general attack on the logistics systems and supply dumps.
While we all share the Foreign Secretary's views about the appalling treatment meted out to prisoners of war in the North Vietnamese camps, the raid on the camp seems to be odd, especially since it is widely reported that the Americans suspected, before it took place, that the camp had already been vacated.
None of us on this side of the House and no one in Britain under-estimates the justified sense of frustration which must be oppressing the American Administration at the failure to make progress in the Paris talks. None of us fails to share their concern about the fate of their soldiers and airmen in the camps. But surely the lesson of the Vietnamese war is that air attack strengthens the resistance of America's opponents far more than it weakens their military capability.
I hope that the Minister of State can assure us that recent reports are not correct in saying that America has given up the search for peace in Paris. We all recognise that one of the keys to political progress over Vietnam is the political situation in South Vietnam, and very few would accept the pre-conditions set by Hanoi that three named individuals should be expelled by the American Government from the Government of Saigon before even talks were able to start. There are some signs of movement in the political situation in Saigon, especially the re-emergence of General Minh—"Big" Minh—as a major figure.
President Nixon was right to stress the need for a political solution in South Vietnam which reflects both the will of the South Vietnamese people and the existing relationship of forces, namely, the fact that there are Communists in South Vietnam as well as supporters of the Saigon Government and, of course, a very large number of people who support neither side and want only to end the war. I hope that the Minister of State can tell us whether there are any signs of movement towards this type of political settlement.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the signature of the agreement. I think that it is right to say that America never signed the agreement.

Mr. Healey: I said that.

Dr. Glyn: The right hon. Gentleman did not say that the Americans did not sign it. Then he said, rightly, that fighting has died down in South Vietnam. However, does not he agree that there is an N.V.A. build-up, especially in Cambodia and Laos, and that it is there where the main danger lies? Although the fighting in Vietnam has died down, the danger is much greater in the other two countries now.

Mr. Healey: I did not say that the Americans had not signed in so many words. I said that the Americans were not involved in the Geneva Conference and specifically refused to be bound by its results. The fact that they are now prepared to accept the Geneva Accords as a framework for negotiation is, I

believe, a substantial step forward in their position.
Dealing with the hon. Gentleman's second question, I concede that there has been a great extension of the fighting, especially in Cambodia, which is again not wholly parallel but which has followed the dying down of the fighting elsewhere.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Healey: I would prefer to get on with my speech.

Mr. Kerr: I think that it will help.

Mr. Healey: In the past, my hon. Friend has often shown his determination to give me all the support that he can. I only hope that he is more successful today that he has been hitherto.
Perhaps I might now say a word or two about the Middle East. I do not think that I disagree with any of the Foreign Secretary's remarks on this subject. We are all deeply concerned about the tragic deadlock between Israel and the Arab countries, and I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that neither side can hope to gain anything from the continuation of the deadlock. It is clear that continuation of the deadlock may produce social and political tensions in the Arab States leading to the collapse of organised Government there, as they very nearly did in Jordan a few weeks ago. While Israel may feel secure against internal eruptions of that nature, the continuation of the deadlock offers no acceptable future, particularly for the younger generation in Israel.
All of us can agree on the need for a settlement. None of us can make any convincing suggestion about how a settlement can be reached in the near future. I doubt very much—with great respect to the Foreign Secretary's ability in these areas—whether the United Kingdom can expect to play a major rôle in the search for a settlement. The Middle East problem is essentially a problem for Israel and the Arabs on the spot, and outside the Middle East for the great Powers which are identified with them—for America and for Russia. It has been well said that two of those concerned dare not make peace and the other two dare not make


war. It is on this very precarious balance that peace—or the absence of another war—rests.
I am very glad that, after some uncertainty, the Foreign Secretary now confirms that there is no important difference between his policy for a settlement and that of the Labour Government which preceded him. I think we all agree that we must devote all our efforts in the immediate future to getting Ambassador Jarring to resume his mission and, as the first objective, to get a renewal of the cease-fire.

Mr. Dennis Walters: But would the right hon. Gentleman not agree, bearing in mind the great British and French and Western European interests in the Middle East, that Britain, France and Western Europe should participate, and participate actively, in a settlement?

Mr. Healey: Of course we are all deeply concerned with peace in the Middle East, both as human beings and in the light of our national interest. My point is that the real clash of attitudes concerns the two groups of countries on the spot, Russia and the United States. Contributions which can be made to a settlement by other countries, even like Britain and France, with major interests in the area, are unlikely to be of major importance. I readily concede—this has always been the hope of Foreign Secretaries and their advisers in Britain—that some day a conjunction of events may arise in which a British initiative could play a decisive role, but, on the evidence, I do not believe that that situation exists at this moment.
The key to progress in relations between East and West lies in Europe and Europe is the area where Britain can and must play a major role. I was glad for this reason that the Foreign Secretary concentrated so much of his attention on the East-West problem in Europe. I believe that we may be on the verge of a major break-through in East-West relations in Europe. I think that the cautious feelers from one side to the other about the possibility of a multilateral European security conference offer us some prospect of a decisive change in the whole post-war situation as it has affected Europe. For this reason, it is vital that we do not miss any oppor-

tunities which may present themselves in the coming months.
I believe—I think that my hon. and right hon. Friends would all agree with me here—that the whole situation in Europe has been transformed in the last 12 months by the courage and vision of the German Government under Chancellor Willy Brandt. All of us who have ever had anything to do with Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union since the war will know that the biggest single obstacle to any progress in East-West relations in Europe has been the deep-rooted suspicion of Germany east of the Iron Curtain, particularly in Russia and Poland.
Although there may have been occasions when this suspicion was deliberately fostered for short-term political ends, no-one who visited Warsaw in the years immediately following the war or who went to Leningrad in the late 'forties can doubt that there is a genuine core of concern about Germany in those countries and that, until and unless that concern can be overcome, the prospects for genuine progress are very slight.
This is where I think Chancellor Brandt's Oestpolitik has had such a stupendous influence on the whole shape of European politics. So far as his Government is concerned, that suspicion is dead in Europe. It does not mean that it is dead so far as Germany itself is concerned, because Governments, as we know to our cost, can change, but there is no doubt that Chancellor Brandt has made a real impact on the Governments in Eastern Europe and has produced a situation which gives us the chance of making real progress, if only we follow it.
I believe that he has done this just as much by the impressive dignity that he has shown as a German as by the diplomatic negotiations which led to the signing of treaties with Moscow and Warsaw. No one who saw photographs in the last day or two of that massive and majestic figure kneeling at the foot of the monument to the victims of the Warsaw Ghetto can fail to have been deeply moved or to have felt that this was a gesture of historic importance for relations between Eastern Europe and Germany, no less than in relations between the Communist world and the West.
It is not surprising that some of Chancellor Brandt's political opponents in Germany are jealous of his success and are trying to revive a nationalist hysteria against the Ostpolitik—although we should pay tribute to certain notable exceptions, like Gerhardt Schroeder, who was Foreign Minister in Germany so long ago and who has put his not inconsiderable weight behind the Ostpolitik.
Some of us felt ashamed that some British Conservatives felt it right to pander to this nationalist hysteria on a recent visit to Bonn, and we are glad that the Foreign Secretary rebuked them. We welcomed his positive words on the Ostpolitik today, as I know they will be welcomed in Germany and throughout Europe. This attempt to fan nationalist passions against the Ostpolitik is a matter of real political importance on the European scene. No one can deny that, with the tiny parliamentary majority which his Government now enjoys, Chancellor Brandt has been running real political risks at home for the sake of improving the prospects for peace in Europe.
None of us can deny that he is absolutely right to insist that, before the treaties with Moscow and Warsaw are ratified, there must be progress on Berlin which is recorded in a firm written agreement. I do not think that there will be any disagreement with what the Foreign Secretary said about the areas in which we want to see progress achieved.
Progress on Berlin is important not just for relation between Germany and Europe and for the further progress of the Ostpolitik: it is also very important if we want to move towards multilateral negotiations in a wider forum for solving the problems of Europe as a whole. It is only the readiness of the East Europeans to respond to the concrete evidence of goodwill offered by Bonn which will justify the West in taking the risks of multilateral negotiations on European security.
I would not deny that there are risks in a multilateral conference. Negotiations have often been used by Russia, as Russian leaders have frankly confessed in their writings and speeches, not to reach agreements with those on the other side of the table, but to confuse, divide and weaken them.
Therefore, progress on the Berlin question, although not a pre-condition of holding a European security conference in the formal sense, is psychologically necessary if the West is to move into such a conference with confidence. Unless we can see a real response to the real concessions already offered by Germany in bilateral negotiations, even if we were propelled by opinion into a conference we would not feel confident about making concessions or bargaining in it. In that sense progress on Berlin is an acid test.
Mr. Brezhnev made a speech in Erevan the other day, and the Communist leaders meeting in East Berlin confirmed it in their communiqué indicating that there may be a response to the Western desire for progress on Berlin. We may see some signs of that in the four-Power meeting which is to be held, I think, tomorrow, but perhaps it will not come until the New Year. We must also have been impressed by the fact that this is the first year for very many years in which the Soviet military budget has not shown an increase in real terms. The budget I am referring to is the one which was published yesterday.
If, as I hope and believe, and as I trust we all hope, there is progress on Berlin, N.A.T.O. must start multilateral contacts with the Warsaw Pact and the neutral countries with a view to holding a European security conference before the end of next year.
I shall spend the next few minutes discussing the prospects for such a conference and using a degree of freedom which I know is forbidden the Foreign Secretary at the moment in the office which he holds.
If we get a European security conference, it will create a new permanent machinery for East-West contacts in Europe which will be a lasting feature of the world scene as familiar to us in future debates as the Common Market Commission in Brussels or, indeed, the United Nations.
I believe that the existence of such a permanent machinery could not only enable progress to be made in solving problems but could also help to prevent some problems from arising at all. Inevitably, standing as we do at the edge of this possible new turn in European politics, there is much speculation about


Communist motives in promoting such a conference. It has been a hardy old warhorse in Soviet diplomacy almost since the end of the Second World War.
Much of this speculation is a waste of time. It is clear that the Russian attitude to a security conference has changed in many respects over the last 10 years, and it has changed a very great deal in particular since Russia renewed the invitation to a security conference after the Czech crisis in the summer of 1968.
It is clear, not only that the Russian position has changed, but that the attitude of Russia's allies in Eastern Europe is different in some respects from hers. Indeed, there is a great variety of attitudes towards a conference in Eastern Europe. Romania has one position. Hungary has a slightly different position. Poland's position is different again. East Germany has a different attitude, as has Bulgaria. It is also clear that their attitudes have affected Russia's attitude. There is—perceptible and identifiable now—a certain dialogue between Russia and her allies in Eastern Europe which would have been inconceivable 20 years ago and certainly would not have been so free and effective even five years ago.
Perhaps it is worth asking ourselves whether we may not, for the first time since the Comintern was founded nearly half a century ago, have reached a stage in world politics in which a negotiation between the Communist States and the Western States will find the Communist States subject to just as much uncertainty and argument with one another in the course of negotiations as we in the Western world have been familiar with on previous occasions.
It is certainly worth speculating that there may be different views inside the Soviet Government about the purposes and the objectives to be achieved in such a conference. Here, as so often in the past, positive thinking on the Western side can strengthen positive thinkers in Moscow, just as negative thinking on the Western side can strengthen negative thinkers there.
What is important is, not so much the motives of the Communist Powers and individuals in their Governments, of which we can have no certain knowledge, as the real advance in their formal position towards the Western view. In 1968

they were asking for a conference which excluded the United States and whose purpose was clearly to ratify the status quo and to get some international acceptance for the so-called doctrine of limited sovereignty—the Brezhnev doctrine by which the Russians sought to justify their military intervention in Czechoslovakia.
The situation in June 1970, at the end of a meeting of the Warsaw Powers, was very different. They accepted the presence of the United States and Canada at a conference. They accepted discussion of the reduction of foreign forces in Europe—something which they conspicuously omitted in earlier approaches. They accepted the search for cultural co-operation as well as co-operation on economic and social matters. Also—in my view, this is the most important of all—they accepted the idea of setting up a permanent body after the conference to continue discussing all these areas and to seek to make progress on them.
This was one of the great contributions which the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor as Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), made to European politics—the suggestion of a permanent commission to make progress in these areas. We can now be glad that the Russians, too, have accepted it.
I know that within these limits there are a large number of areas where there is still a difference between the Powers, but I do not believe that any of the remaining differences between the attitude of N.A.T.O. and that of the Warsaw Powers are incapable of being reconciled in the normal process of diplomatic discussion. We are all now in the same ball park.
What should the conference discuss and what should its real purpose be? I think that the conference can usefully enlarge the scope for co-operation in economic, social and cultural contacts simply by making a declaration which defines this area of possibility. I think that real progress here will have to be made by bilateral discussions between Communist and Western Governments. Indeed, I think that the attempt to multilateralise economic or social co-operation could reduce the scope for co-operation. I greatly doubt if Germany would have been able to make her recent deal with Russia on natural gas if she had first had


to get the agreement of N.A.T.O. and of the Common Market.
But security, which is by far the most important problem, is a problem of alliances, and this can be dealt with only on a multilateral basis. It is progress with the security problem which is the greatest prize to be gained through a conference and continuing discussions such as I have suggested. No more than the Foreign Secretary do I under-estimate the difficulties for both sides in reaching agreement on mutual and balanced force reductions. As the Foreign Secretary said, N.A.T.O. is vastly inferior to the Warsaw Powers in conventional forces, so we could not accept equal reductions. Indeed, there are areas where we could not even accept proportional reductions without jeopardising our security. As the Foreign Secretary also said, if it is a question of external forces, the American forces would have to withdraw 6,000 kilometres across the ocean; the Russian forces would have to withdraw only 600 kilometres across land.
There are difficulties on the Russian side, too. It became very clear during 1968 that the Soviet forces have a rôle in Eastern Europe which is not affected in any way by the level of N.A.T.O. forces in Western Europe. Whether we like it or not, one of the rôles of Soviet forces in Eastern Europe is to maintain a degree of control over the freedom of the Eastern European countries. None of us will seek to justify that rôle, but none of us can afford to ignore that it is there. It inevitably puts some limit to the type of reductions which the Russians could accept.
Similar problems also affect the negotiations for strategic arms limitation, to which I was surprised the Foreign Secretary made no references in his speech. The S.A.L.T. negotiations are probably the most important and serious East-West negotiations which have yet taken place. They were not affected even by the American invasion of Cambodia or the recent Soviet behaviour in the Middle East. It is quite clear that America and Russia are deeply serious in seeking to reach agreement on the limitation of strategic arms. Both sides have prepared their positions for the negotiations with unprecedented thoroughness. It is

probably the first East-West negotiation in which there has been no propaganda from either side, and very few leaks. From the few leaks that there have been, I think that we are justified in saying that within the next 12 months or so there may be agreement between America and Russia on limiting the total number of nuclear delivery vehicles on each side, and on limiting, if not abolishing, the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems.
But it is already clear that the S.A.L.T. negotiations are bound to be a continuing process, broadening in scope and deepening in penetration of the problem with each success. It is vital that the allies of America and Russia begin to get involved in this type of interchange. I do not mean on the strategic arms limitation as such, but it could be dangerous for the allies of either super-Power if the Russians and Americans drew steadily closer together on the straegic nuclear plane and no progress whatever was made between the Warsaw Pact as a whole and N.A.T.O. on the problems of security in Europe. A Soviet-American rapprochement must be accompanied by a rapprochement between Eastern Europe and Western Europe. I very much agree with the Foreign Secretary that Western Europe must concert its policy on these matters if it is to negotiate effectively. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the success of his recent consultations with his colleagues in the Common Market.
We can learn a lot from the S.A.L.T. talks about how to approach mutual and balanced force reductions in Europe. If we are to have successful negotiations for mutual reductions, we must go into the talks with a solid position, maintaining our side of the military balance, otherwise we remove from the other side all incentive to make reciprocal reductions, and if we do not have confidence in our own security we shall not be prepared even to contemplate concessions on our side.
For that reason, I very much welcome the success of the North Atlantic Alliance at the Council meeting last week in strengthening its existing military position. I welcome particularly, as did the Foreign Secretary, President Nixon's promise not to make reductions in America's capability, at any rate during this term


of office. I also very much welcomed the force improvement, or rather the budgetary contribution which has been made by the European Powers to relieve the strains on the United States. I regret that the United Kingdom Government were not more helpful here. It is much more worth while spending money, if we have it, to strengthen our position in Europe than on making token contributions to a dying policy east of Suez. I do not believe that any of our allies are taken in when nearly all the force additions we have offered in Europe are offset by force reductions—the withdrawal of frigates, Nimrod aircraft and a battalion to the Far East. One cannot have it both ways—not for long, anyway.
One major difficulty which has already arisen in the S.A.L.T. talks might well be a subject for early discussion between the alliances in Europe. The United States, largely on insistence from its European allies, has insisted that in adding up the strategic forces of the two sides we should include the medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles sited in the Soviet Union but aimed at targets among America's allies in Western Europe. The Russians have refused to accept the inclusion of M.R.B.M.s and I.R.B.M.s, but have themselves insisted that the Americans should include any nuclear weapons based in Western Europe which could reach the Soviet Union. There is an obvious and genuine problem here. Neither side need be accused of making difficulties for propaganda purposes in raising these points. Both these questions are vital to us in Western Europe.
There is the real problem here that, so long as the Russians maintain a big conventional superiority, nuclear weapons are a vital part of the defence of Western Europe. I sometimes wonder whether one subject for discussion in a security conference between the two sides might be how to deal with the problem of nuclear weapons with strategic capability in Western Europe and Russian M.R.B.M.s and I.R.B.M.s, and whether we should not move on to consider whether the Russians would agree to reduce their 19,000 tanks against a reduction in the 7,000 N.A.T.O. nuclear weapons in Western Europe. I throw those possibilities out for discussion. I have no idea whether the Russians would be attracted by them, but, if they were,

an agreement along those lines could strengthen rather than weaken the security of both sides and meet some of the very difficult problems of the assymetry between the strategic composition of the forces on the two sides.
We have only to raise those points to recognise that serious discussion on mutual force reductions raises very difficult issues. But I believe that they, like the equally difficult problems of strategic arms limitations between America and Russia, are soluble given effort and good will on both sides. One thing that is clear is that none of the problems can be solved in a three-day conference. They would need prolonged consideration by experts from the two alliances, and it might well be necessary to have a machinery in which the neutrals did not wholly participate until agreement between the alliances had moved to a certain point.
My own feeling is that it would be desirable for representatives of the two alliances to run over the problems before a conference met so that they could at least agree on how the conference should say that the problems should be handled. They could perhaps agree on terms of reference and a programme. Certainly the hard work of negotiating on these very difficult issues would take many months, if not years, and would require to be done in continuous negotiation between highly competent experts. However difficult agreement would be, I think that here, as ill the S.A.L.T. talks, we might obtain some benefit through greater understanding of one another's attitudes and motives, even before we were able to draft formal and written agreements.
Anyone who has thought a little about some of the complexities I have been discussing is bound to be a little nervous about embarking on discussions about them with the other side. I suppose that we all have a certain natural conservatism. We all prefer to
always keep a hold on Nurse,
For fear of getting something worse.
But I believe that, thanks very largely to Chancellor Brandt's Government and the Ostpolitik, we now have an opportunity for changing the whole context in which until now we have had to consider East-West relations in Europe. I think that there is a chance—and I am not starry-eyed about it—that if we


handle the present conjunction of events properly the two halves of Europe may begin to grow together. It is only if we make progress in solving the East-West problems, and rapid progress, that we have any chance whatever of solving the problems between North and South in time.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. John Loveridge: It is an honour to speak in this House for the first time. I suppose that I, like many Maiden speakers before me, am somewhat apprehensively overwhelmed by the history of our House, not perhaps the least because of the interesting and historic illuminations we had earlier this afternoon! This House has been a fountain head of freedom, affecting nations far beyond our own boundaries. I can see that it would be an easy place to gain affection for, and indeed, to love. It is larger than we ourselves within it, and larger even than the great historical parties themselves. My predecessor here was, I know, well respected on both sides of the House, and perhaps the House may enjoy the pleasure of his company again, although not, I hope, in my seat.
In this constituency of Hornchurch, in Essex, there is a plot of ground called "Tyler's Common". It was there that Wat Tyler marched in the Peasants' Rebellion of 1381. He was leading a revolt against a poll tax, not unlike our modern selective employment tax. Then; the struggle for liberty was mainly at home. Now; the threat comes from outside our nation.
My speech should not be controversial because it is about the safety of our people, and that I believe can never be a matter of controversy within the House, however much we may differ on how to safeguard our people's interests. Since the war, we have been kept safe under the protection of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and under the nuclear umbrella. The Alliance, however, is changing. Europe is richer than she was and America is heavily committed within her own economy and her own cities as well as in Vietnam. Thus, N.A.T.O. today must adapt to new conditions. Europe must pay for more of its own defence and take a greater interest in the defence of the world as a whole, and in

this context I was glad to hear the statement of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on how discussions were progressing with the ten nations, and in the European community.
Each year, Russia has added more and more to her armed strength. The Russians have shown their willingness to use force, as in Czechoslovakia. It is, of course, a small comfort, though comfort it be, to hear today from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that, in the past year, there has been no real increase in the amount of money the Russians devote to defence purposes.

Mr. Healey: Next year.

Mr. Loveridge: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman—next year. Even so, this great build up of armed forces has taken place; yet many Russians love peace and we should not tempt the hawks within that nation. It is within this context of temptation that I wish to refer to one specific aspect of British foreign policy—namely, within the Indian Ocean area.
In that area, the future cannot be known for certain. All we know is that the unexpected is almost certain to occur. It is an area that N.A.T.O. has neglected. When the Suez Canal is open again and the Russian fleets sail through, together with their long-range submarines, to find a base at Aden, then the balance of power will be altered. A new flank will be created in the Indian Ocean as surely as it has been created recently in the Mediterranean.
If we leave the north of that area, the Gulf, and desert it, we can be almost sure that hostilities will come about between the communities there. Those hostilities within the States will surely beckon, and almost oblige, the Russians to support communist or anarchical endeavours within that area. But if we stay, the Russians will not want direct confrontation with us. They seldom do. Why, then, tempt the hawks of Russia by leaving the area vacant? The Lord's Prayer says simply,
Lead us not into temptation".
Let us encourage the doves of Russia by staying. We do not need to stay in exactly the same format as we have in the past. New measures could be found that are acceptable to the States there and still provide the necessary protection
I now turn to the question of the sea area. We in this country are very dependent upon the safety of supplies round the Cape route. No nation is more dependent than we are upon the safety of that route. It is possible to envisage a very realistic threat taking place there. I do not mean a threat from the Russians or their fleet but from the new pirates. We have seen them seize aircraft; we have seen diplomats kidnapped. It is just as easy to envisage pirates dropping free floating mines in front of or along the routes where the great oil tankers so cumbersomely sail.
The importance of this area needs new recognition. It is a key to world dominance. It was this thought that led Napoleon to Egypt. It was this thought that led Hitler to send Rommel into Africa. Today, it is the weakest link in the Western Alliance and it is very natural for the Russians to probe into it. They have built a great navy to do so. We should keep small forces, not large, there until N.A.T.O. wakes up to the need and a more permanent peace is made possible. On the seas, we cannot afford ourselves to provide the fleets and aircraft necessary to patrol the area and, indeed, we have inherited far less in armed forces strength then we should like to have done in recent years. We must, therefore, look for allies if we cannot do it alone.
First, of course we look naturally to our great friend, the United States. But she is heavily committed elsewhere, and in Vietnam, and we do not wish the Americans in any way to reduce their commitments within Europe itself. Then, where can we look? We must look to South Africa. Both of us have interests in the Cape sea route. This is a defence question. No approval of the vile system of apartheid is involved. We did not give approval to Stalinism or to the elimination of the kulaks when Russia became our ally in the Second World War. Self-defence must have priority over our objections to the internal systems of other nations.
But even on this vital and important moral question, the more South Africa associates with free peoples, the more opinion can influence her towards a belief in the brotherhood of man with man, and in this way ameliorate the conditions

which we all hate so much within South Africa. It may be that some of the northern countries of Africa will resent naval supplies being sold, if they are, but there are African leaders, men of good will and high intelligence, who in their hearts will be glad if the Indian Ocean remains free.
If the West is strong, all Africa can hope for the long-term future, but if Western ideals fall, all hope of freedom is for ever gone. Even among oppressed people there are many who realise this, and it is my great hope that the Commonwealth Conference will accept this view.
To sum up; first, we should protect the Gulf, either directly or indirectly; second, we should obtain allies to help us protect the sea routes, just as we are to join the five-Power arrangement to help South-East Asia. These two further steps are the best available to us for our safety in this area, and they give the best hope for a basis of negotiation for the long-term future.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker: We have just listened to a very well delivered speech by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Loveridge). He spoke with great confidence and self-reliance. It made me envious when I looked back to my maiden speech of many years ago. He made a well-arranged and well-argued speech. He has clear and strong views which he is not frightened to express, although he must know that there are many hon. Members who strongly disagree with some of the things he said. On another occasion when he speaks he must expect to be interrupted, but I do not doubt that he will enjoy that and be able to deal with it. He has the capacity to hold the attention of the House, which listened to him with great care. We all look forward to hearing from him again and to interrupting him as well as enjoying listening to his speech.
I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the key to the next critical stage in East-West relations lies in knowing what the Russians' real intentions are towards a détente in Europe, in the West, and the European Security Conference. Although I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about that, I come to conclusions which are different in emphasis from his.
It is true that in the past the Soviet Union has proposed similar conferences, mainly for the purpose of trying to prevent some development in Europe which it did not like, for example, the membership of West Germany of N.A.T.O. In the past, such conferences, called for political and diversionary reasons, always degenerated into propaganda battles. It is right to remember this when one is considering new proposals for a European Security Conference, and it may be that one of the motives of the Russians is to try to delay or hinder Britain's membership of the Common Market.
But it is possible to be too suspicious about this sort of thing. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said, there are different views in the Kremlin and I am sure that if that is one, it is not the decisive view. The Foreign Secretary said that we were getting fair words from the Soviet Union about a conference and a détente, but nothing more and no deeds. But the Soviet Union has given one clear indication of a real change in its European policy, namely, its complete somersault and turnabout in its attitude to West Germany.
We talk rightly of Bonn's Ostpolitik This is a great change in German policy. I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend about the great courage and the great dignity of Willy Brandt and the important initiative which he has taken, but we tend to think too much of the Ospolitik as involving a change of German policy, which it does, while overlooking that there is an even greater change in Soviet policy involved in the Ostpolitik.
Ever since the war, the Soviet Union has held together and disciplined the East European nations by dramatising the fear of Germany. I well remember in several conversations I had with Mr. Khrushchev how adamant and unbending he always was on this matter. Over and over again he came back to the view that Germany was revanchiste, was the one disturbing feature in Europe, and that good Socialists like the Labour Party should agree with him about it. Nothing could budge him.
But now Russia has budged. Suddenly it has become respectable to have friendly relations with West Germany. The degree of this change and its speed and

extent are shown, for instance, by the need the Soviet Union has found to defend itself, rather angrily, against China, which is using the old arguments that the Soviet Union used to use, and are also shown by the considerable difficulty which the Soviet Union is finding in handling Ulbricht, who is also relying on the old traditional Soviet policy. This switch in Russian policy is so sharp that one is justified in describing it as a diplomatic revolution. It is a watershed in European politics since the war.
This diplomatic revolution goes further. It extends to the East European nations, and they have different views. When the Soviet Union concluded the treaty with Bonn, most of these European nations on previous form should have been expected to be filled with alarm and anxiety. They all said that they were very frightened of Germany and so on and that Russia was protecting them and that Germany was the great danger. When Russia changed policy, these nations should have been filled with alarm and anxiety, but nothing of the sort happened.
On the contrary, when the Soviet Union started to bring pressure on Ulbricht in order to shift him on this matter, Russia received the backing of all the other East European nations, and these nations themselves are showing a strong desire to have separate relations with West Germany itself and with other West European nations, and they are showing a strong desire for a European Security Conference. Their almost unconcealed motive is to win greater independence from the Soviet Union and to try to reduce the number of Soviet forces on their territory.
This attitude of theirs is a form of protest, a desire for self-protection against the Brezhnev doctrine which threatens them all. This attitude and policy of the East European nations has already had a perceptible effect on Soviet policy, and it has been the main motive in inducing the Soviet Union to make considerable concessions to Western views about the nature of the European Security Conference.
In the light of these considerations, what should be our attitude to the European Security Conference? Of course it is right and prudent to test Russia's words by deeds, especially over East Berlin, but it would be very foolish—and I did not


think that the Foreign Secretary sufficiently recognised this—to ignore the signs of significant changes in the basic attitude in Europe of the Soviet Union and the East European nations.
There may be no guarantee of success. There is always a risk involved when starting a conference of this kind with a danger or possibility that fixed and rigid views and lines will begin to be taken up. But we must remember that there is a very great prize at stake if we are successful, namely the achievement of a mutual and balanced reduction of forces. As the Foreign Secretary said, great difficulties are involved, but it is a great objective, it is our major objective. It would make a vast difference if we could get such a balanced, mutual reduction of forces and at last approach the possibility of reducing the enormous peace-time expenditure on defence.
We must also remember that the world would look ill today on the Soviet Union if it used this conference, should it come about, merely for a propaganda battle of words. The world would also look ill upon us if we pitched the preconditions for the conference so high as to make its calling virtually impossible. We have to be very careful.
Of course we have to keep up the defences of N.A.T.O., we must not let down our guard. We should approach the possibility of a European Security Conference with prudence but with rather greater enthusiasm than the Foreign Secretary has shown.
This shift of attitude, in the East European nations in particular, allows us to begin to think and talk again of Europe as a whole. If, as I hope and believe, Britain can and will become a member of the Common Market, we must do all we can as a member to help open doors and windows to East Europe, to help bring about in due course and in some form or another a reconstitution of Europe as a whole in the full, historical and ultimately only true sense of the concept of Europe.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Winston Churchill: As I rise to address this House for the first time my feelings are both of humility and pride. They are of humility at being the youngest Member on this side of the House and very conscious of the

great traditions of the House. They are of pride at being the fifth member in succession in my family to serve in this House and the third this century to enter this House representing a Lancashire seat.
Thirty years ago, in another dark winter, the winter of 1940, when the bombs were dropping around this House, my father made his maiden speech representing Preston, Lancashire. Seventy years ago the newly-elected Member for Oldham, concluding his maiden speech which concerned the situation in South Africa and Ireland—and to judge by what has been going on in this Session we have not made great progress on these subjects in those 70 years—made mention of "a certain splendid memory" which hon. Members of this House preserved referring to his father, Lord Randolph.
I, too, must say that I am very conscious of a splendid memory that many hon. Members on both sides of the House preserve. I have been very much aware of this in the few brief months that I have spent here, through the friendship that has been accorded me from every quarter of the House.
Stretford, known to many hon. Members as the home of Manchester United football ground and the Lancashire County Cricket ground, is also the greatest distributive centre of Britain and one of the greatest industrial centres of Western Europe. Foreign affairs and the security of our island are of the first importance to all the people of this country but they are of especial importance to my constituents in Stretford and Urmston who contribute so much to the export trade of the country and depend so heavily upon it.
There are many critical questions to be solved at home, the most grievous of which is undoubtedly the fact that 10 per cent. of the British people live in houses officially "unfit for human habitation". But these are matters on which I am no longer allowed to transgress in public. The problems facing Britain overseas are of even greater gravity for they threaten the prosperity and security of everyone of us. Twenty-five years after the end of the Second World War, we have, I believe, reached a cross-roads in international relations. In the course of those


25 years we have come a long way—unfortunately it has been a very long way down hill.
We have moved from a position where we stood on a level footing with the United States and the Soviet Union to a point today when the S.A.L.T. talks in Helsinki are proceeding and Britain is neither represented nor consulted on matters that deeply affect the lives of every one of us in these islands and of our children. This is the measure of our decline in the past 25 years and there can be few Members of this House who do not deprecate it. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, regard our national sovereignty of prime importance—and quite rightly so. But what use is it to be sovereign in form of words only, while true sovereignty—the ability to provide for the security of our own people and to have Britain's voice heard in the councils of the world—is rapidly escaping us in the meantime?
There can be few hon. Members unaware that we have once again allowed ourselves to fall into a dangerous situation. I say "once again" advisedly because we have been here before. We have been faced by countries, who, of their own choosing, are hostile to us, and against whom we no longer have adequate means of defence.
Britain, indeed all the Western world, has sheltered for too long under the giant American umbrella, which has preserved the freedom and peace of Europe without a shot fired for 25 years.
It would be difficult not to recognise the strong undercurrent of isolationism which is running in the United States today and which is to be found anywhere outside official Washington. Faced with a public opinion in the United States which today largely equates Europe with South-East Asia as containing a tiresome lot of people who should be standing on their own feet, and realising the domestic preoccupations she has, it would be imprudent to suppose that the United States will always be at hand in the last resort. We have had to stand alone before, and there will certainly be less time in any future crisis to make good the years of neglect.
There are those who put their faith in "détente". We have heard a great deal about that this afternoon—and I am not unaware of who it was who first embarked on Ostpolitik in 1953. I share the view that it must be the prime aim of our policy to grasp the hand of friendship of the Soviet Union whenever she may proffer it—not only that of the Soviet Union but that of the most populous republic in the world, the Peoples' Republic of China who must, as of right, and above all out of common sense, take her place among the community of nations. I firmly believe that the path lies open to Britain to take a major initiative in this direction.
But there are grave dangers in pursuing an Ostpolitik from a position of weakness and when no tangible reciprocity is available in return. There is no doubt that as a people who have no ambition other than to live in peace within our own borders and see the world free, we all too easily persuade ourselves to believe what we would like to believe—indeed very often what others would like us to believe. I know that I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that no country would more willingly dispose of the burden of arms expenditure or the threat of nuclear warfare than this country if freedom and peace could be secured by other means. But we have nothing to go on but the facts. What are they?
The external policies of a country very often reflects its internal policies. What sort of a country is the Soviet Union today? We see the way that they treat their authors and persecute the Jews. We see the power of their secret police. We see the worth of their treaties made at Cierna and Bratislava. If this is how they honour treaties with their friends, what can be the value of treaties with those they regard as their enemies?
The House will not forget that it is less than 2½ years since the Soviet and Quisling divisions of Eastern Europe rolled into Czechoslovakia overnight to suppress the flame of freedom that after more than 30 years of Nazi and Soviet tyranny was beginning to flicker bravely once again.
In the Middle East we have listened for the last three years to the Soviet Union talking peace, while she has openly been building up a base of imperial power


which would have put even Lord Cromer to shame. The Soviet Union has used these three years, not to make peace, but to introduce into the Middle East more than 10,000 of her own military personnel. She has established naval bases at Port Said, Alexandria, Latakia and Aden. She has taken over air bases such as Cairo West which are today under the exclusive control of the Soviet Union and from which squadrons of Russian-piloted Tupoler bombers and MiG fighters can give land-based air support to Soviet amphibious forces in the Mediterranean. This poses a direct threat to the southern flank of N.A.T.O.
The principal obstacle to concluding a peace settlement in the Middle East today comes not from Israel or from the Arab countries. It comes directly from the Soviet Union, which is in the game not as an honest broker but in pursuit of its own aims.
On the high seas the Soviet Union has built up a massive naval presence in the Mediterranean and elsewhere and, like the iceberg, what is seen on the surface is small compared with what lurks in the dark waters below. The Soviet Union has built up a force of more than 300 attack submarines which could directly threaten the lifelines of this country and Western Europe. At the very least, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) said the other day, whatever reason they have been built for, it was clearly not for our benefit.
Her Majesty's Government have expressed themselves to be well aware of the need to guard against this Soviet naval threat. I share their view. But even if we were substantially to increase our own and allied naval forces, all would be in vain if meanwhile our sources of supply were to fall into unfriendly hands. I have in mind, above all, the Persian Gulf on which Britain and Europe depend for two-thirds of their oil supplies. The experience of recent years has shown that the Soviet Union never moves in to attack our forces, no matter how thin on the ground they may be. Invariably she waits until they have left and, if the area is of strategic importance, she moves in. We have witnessed this in Egypt. We are today seeing it in Aden where there is a Russian harbourmaster and Soviet MiGs fly out of Khor-

moksar so recently abandoned by the Royal Air Force and, through no fault of his own, by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell).
There may be hon. Members, and even right hon. Members, who believe that the Soviet Union will not move into Bahrein or send a naval deputation to wait upon Sheikh Zaid in Abu Dhabi. But what if they are wrong? What if we find in two or three years our oil supplies in Russian hands? It is alleged that they cannot drink the substance and that of necessity the oil must be sold to the West. The same argument I recall was used not many years ago about the Suez Canal which, it was supposed, Egypt could not possibly survive without—of course she could not, had there not been someone at hand to make good the deficit.
I trust that there are no hon. or right hon. Members on this side of the House who would contemplate jeopardising the industry, indeed the security, of Britain and Western Europe by pulling out the limited but none the less adequate forces which we have stationed in the Gulf. We have not given these countries independence so that the Soviet Union can make them her colonies, nor have we abandoned our bases so that Soviet imperialist power can be spread more widely across the globe.
But it is not enough to canvass the opinion of others, to expect others to get up on soap boxes to cheer a British policy, as has been the case of South African arms. In the Persian Gulf, as elsewhere, it is for us to make up our own minds and to pursue the course that is best for the national interest of the country. Faced as we are, with the realities of Soviet militarism and expansionism in Czechoslovakia, the Middle East and on the high seas, is it reasonable to suppose that the Soviet Union's policy in Europe is the reverse of what it is elsewhere?
The Soviet Union has three prime aims in Western Europe: first, to secure the departure of American forces from Europe; secondly, to bring about the break-up of N.A.T.O.; and, thirdly, to prevent Europe uniting. In the short term, it is vital to do all in our power to maintain the United States' commitment in Europe. Clearly this is best done, as the Government are doing, by


stepping up our contribution to N.A.T.O., thereby affirming our continued belief in the importance of collective security.
But, for the long term, it is difficult to see any alternatives. All roads lead inexorably in the same direction. There are those who would rely on an increasingly isolationist United States. There are others who would rely on the good will of the Soviet Union. There are yet others who would see us stand alone and take a ringside seat. I cannot count myself among their number.
For my part, the only direction that I can see which offers real prospects for extricating ourselves from the highly unsatisfactory, indeed very dangerous, situation to which we have brought ourselves, is to go forward to build a United Europe.
For more than 350 years, the prime aim of British foreign policy has been to prevent Europe from uniting against us. For this reason, we fought Philip of Spain, Louis of France, Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler. Are we to choose the very moment when Europe is once again uniting, to stand aloof and risk the possibility of one country or one man again dominating this great continent of which we form part? Are we to forgo this opportunity of prosperity, of strengthening our defences and of making the voice of Britain heard loud and clear once more in the counsels of the world? I believe emphatically not, and there are millions of my generation who would agree.
Those who favour opting out and going to pot a few in number. We have a duty to ourselves and to those who will follow us to play our part in Europe and, through Europe, to play our part in the world. Above all, we have a duty to place our destiny once again in our own hands, and it must be our task so to convince the nation.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: This is the first occasion in all my experience in this House that I have had the opportunity of congratulating a maiden speaker. It is a duty which I perform very happily indeed on this occasion, and I am sure that I shall have the whole House with me. I do so in spite of the fact—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) will not misunderstand what I am now going to

say—that of all the Conservative victories at the last election, the one that grieved me most was that at Stretford which deprived this House of my former Parliamentary Private Secretary, Dr. Ernest Davies, who was a distinguished, valuable member of this House, and many of us will hope to see him again in our counsels.
The hon. Gentleman said he felt some humility at being the youngest Member on his side of the House. I hope that that will not inhibit him too much. His grandfather was never afflicted by an undue respect for his elders, nor indeed for the leaders of the Conservative Party. We trust that the hon. Gentleman will follow the great example that he always will have before him.
There are some parts of the hon. Gentleman's argument to which I should like to refer a little later in my speech. I wish to apologise for the fact that I was not able to hear most of the Foreign Secretary's speech, but owing to a duty imposed on me by this House which led to my being elsewhere, and also the fact that the debate began very much later than was expected, unfortunately I was not able to be present.
I will try not to detain the House long and to confine myself to a point which has been the theme of many speakers. It is the whole question of relations between East and West and the possibility of what is generally called détente between ourselves and the Soviet Union. I believe that we may be—and I cannot use a stronger phrase than "may be"—in the presence of a major historical development in relations between Eastern and Western parts of Europe. If we try to seek the reasons for East and West Europe being divided in this fashion and now being locked in a sort of ugly embrace from which neither side is prepared to move, we should have to go back to the beginning of this century to give the full reasons for the present situation. We are now in this cleavage between the ideologies in Europe and the powers involved, both of which are formidably and terribly armed.
In times within our memory there has been the danger of real armed collision between the two blocs and collision with nuclear weapons. That danger still hangs over us and over mankind. What we are considering now is


whether there is the possibility at first of getting that danger to recede and in time—and this will take time—in the end to cease to be one of the major factors in the world scene. Can this be done?
It has been said in this debate that some pin their faith on détente. I trust that if we cannot go as far as faith we are prepared to go as far as hope. There is a famous remark attributed to Ernest Bevin when he was considering whether he should try to seek a major re-appraisal of the West's relations with the Soviet Union. His comment was, "I don't want to open Pandora's box and find it full of Trojan horses." It was an extremely apt remark, a very pregnant phrase, for if we do open this question people have a natural anxiety that the box will contain Trojan horses, namely that smooth words spoken from the other end of Europe may contain merely a trap for the West, for democracy and for human freedom. It is an error to think that danger does not exist. I believe that it is an equal error to suppose that it is the end of the matter and that danger must always be there. Pandora's box in the legend contained all the troubles, but perhaps we should read the legend to its end. After all the troubles that came out of Pandora's box, the last creature that came out was Hope. That is what we must fix our minds upon at present.
The present situation in the world involving the two enormous blocs that face each other, and armed as they are, cannot go on indefinitely. The peace of the world can be kept by fear for a certain time, but mankind is not the kind of creature who can be permanently frightened into virtue. He can be frightened into virtue for a time, but we must use the time we now have to see whether we can establish what is popularly called détente—that is to say, a safer relationship between the great groupings in the world.
Where do we now stand in this search, a search which has been going on for some time with suggestions of various kinds from both East and West. There was the suggestion for mutual force reductions which the West made at Reykjavik. There was the recent suggestion for a European Security Conference made by the Warsaw Pact and there have been two Ministerial meetings

of N.A.T.O., the one in May in which my right hon. Friend and I took part when the Labour Government was in power and the recent meeting in which the present Government were represented.
The common reply from the West to any proposal for a conference on European security has been, "Yes, but it will need careful preparation". This is true, but we cannot go on for ever using that phrase as an excuse for not having such a conference at all. If we believe that the matter needs careful preparation, we have to get on with the preparation. That is what we were endeavouring to do at the N.A.T.O. Ministers' meeting in May and that is what I trust the present Government will resolutely proceed with. The task, as many speakers have pointed out, has been made the easier for us by the courageous and brilliantly handled policy of the present German Government. There was a real difficulty in the West so long as Germany herself was reluctant to make any move. It was difficult, if not impossible for the West to put itself in a position where it might appear to be doing a deal with the Soviet Union at the expense of the liberties of Western Germany.
The one reason we ought now to be thinking about détente is that this drawback has been removed. We have now a German Government not only full of good intentions but, so far as we can judge by present results, armed with a great deal of diplomatic skill as well. When we say that one necessary step in the advance to détente is that the Russians shall talk seriously about Berlin, we are not now asking for the impossible. In the light of what has already happened, it is something we have reasonable hope may actually occur.
If it does, then surely we can proceed, as was envisaged at the N.A.T.O. Conference in May, and I trust at the more recent meeting, on a path something like this: to a multilateral meeting of national representatives, perhaps at ambassador level, to prepare the ground speedily for the holding of the conference and for one of the results of the conference to be the setting up of a permanent body on East-West relations. In the days of the last Government it was called a Standing Commission on East-West relations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was kind enough to refer to my special concern for this policy. I do not think that I am over-praising my own child in saying that one of the promising facts in the present situation is that the Russians have accepted this idea, though not exactly in the form which we proposed.
The advantages are as follows. We in the West had some anxiety that if there were a European security conference it would be used quickly to rubber-stamp such arrangements as Russia managed to secure in East Europe and after that it would dissolve and do nothing more. If there is to be a permanent body, we can keep hammering away on matters of concern to us, as well as the Russians, on matters of concern to them.
We should also take note of that terribly long-winded Geneva Conference on Disarmament. But because it was longwinded and went on and on, it got us a partial test ban treaty and a nonproliferation treaty. These treaties do not solve the world's problems by a long chalk, not even all disarmament problems, but they were valuable achievements which would not have been achieved at a once-for-all conference.
I envisage such a standing body sometimes dealing with matters directly, sometimes referring them to the most appropriate organisation, whether it were for trade or for cultural contacts, and in particular for mutual, balanced, force reductions which would have to be done, in effect, between the blocs because of the nature of the subject.
We ought not to forget that one of the great values of a conference on European security, and, still more, of a permanent body thereafter, would be that the European neutrals and non-aligned would be given an opportunity to speak. I think that we might even find that some of the voices raised from the Warsaw Pact countries indicated that there was not that complete monolithic unity that there used to be in that alliance. That is putting hope rather high, but if we are looking into what may be a distant future we ought not to rule this out. These are the things which could be done.
We know the arguments which can be advanced on the other side. The hon. Member for Stretford voiced some of

them. Many of the points which he mentioned about the nature of the Soviet Government are true. But those who are inclined to lay emphasis on that side of the argument must then ask themselves the question: what follows in the sphere of British policy? When one has made every criticism of the Soviet form of government—I have made as many as anyone in this House, and there are many to be made—one is still left with the question: what do we propose to do? Part of the answer has been supplied by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They say that they will stand firmly to their defences. That I will accept provided that it is done with some regard to our resources.
Pre-eminently at present keeping up our defences to that we and the rest of Western Europe can speak effectively to the Russians is a question of keeping up our defences in Europe. If, in addition, as has been suggested by some hon. Gentlemen, we have to stay in the Persian Gulf, police most of the Indian Ocean, and look after South-East Asia as well, then those who advocate this policy must realise that, even if this were politically possible, this country could achieve it economically only by turning itself into a kind of Sparta—a State deliberately organised for military purposes. It would not be the slightest use talking about 6d. off the income tax then or restoring people's liberties.
If we are to do our duty in the defence of Europe and follow, as was suggested, Napoleon and Rommel—not very happy examples of what happens to people who have illusions of grandeur in those parts of the world—we can do it only by turning this country into a kind of Sparta. Hon. Members know that the country will not do that, even if it were politically sensible to try, which I do not believe.
The other remedy suggested by some hon. Gentlemen opposite is that, in the interests of our defences, we should get ourselves closer to South Africa. Laying aside the whole argument about apartheid, where I believe that this suggestion is totally wrong is that we could hardly take a step today which would be more likely to tilt the whole balance of power in the world against us than to get nearer to South Africa, particularly in a military sense.
Whatever may be said about these matters, it surely must be right, to return


to my main theme, to seek as best we can for a détente. We may fail. The most gloomy predictions about the Russians and their intentions and the way that they will conduct the conference may prove to be right. But the issue is too great and the stakes, for good or ill, too high for us to take for granted from the start that we shall fail. If the present Governments in the West put themselves in the position where they seem to be saying, "We think that the chances are so low that we will not even try", this will become less credible as every year brings another class of young people into the age of majority and adult citizenship.
Scientists tell us that if the polestar were suddenly to disintegrate it would be more than 40 years before we were aware of the fact so long does the light take to travel. When we look at the heavens we cannot help looking at something which is no longer there. We sometimes make the same error in politics of imagining, looking at the European scene, that we are still looking at the hard, intractable problems that East-West relations seemed to present many years ago. It is looking at something which is no longer there and which, in the end, estranges governments from the growing mass of young people in their own countries. This will happen if the West does not, in addition to maintaining its defence, show something of the imagination and skill that has been shown by Herr Brandt in the conduct of his policies.
We can take the most pessimistic or the most optimistic view. I recommend the Government not to go to either foolish extreme. On the one hand, they must not be blank and negative throughout; on the other hand, they must not make the error of thinking that all we want is the exchange of a few nice words and we shall all be safe. It is not as easy as that. I trust that the Government's policy will lie steadily on the optimistic side of the centre line beween those two extremes, because that is what the present world situation requires—a situation in which Russia may be more willing to talk reasonably than she has been for a long time and in which the requirements of the West demand that, in addition to looking to our defences, we should show skill and imagination. This is the responsibility which lies on the Government in this sphere.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: First, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) on his excellent maiden speech. I do so not only because I am a Member of this side of the House, but one who had the honour of being a junior Minister in the late Sir Winston Churchill's Administration which, as far as I am concerned, was the greatest honour of my political life. I think that when talking about détente and so on, some of my hon. Friend's points might have been missed.
We have today listened to a former Foreign Secretary and a former Secretary of State for Defence. One of Sir Winston's faults was to be too far ahead of events. One example of this was his Fulton speech, when a number of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway saw fit to put down a Motion of censure on him, and another was in 1953 when, in full reverse, they objected to him making the first advances to the Russians.

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: We also made him Prime Minister.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: That helped. If he had been Prime Minister before things would have been easier.
The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) talked about defence depending on our resources. Will is something that is necessary in addition to resources. The right hon. Gentleman became slightly political, and I say that to my generation the Fulham by-election, which is one of the things that is burned into my memory, produced by its implications so many of the problems of the late 'thirties. If the country had backed the Conservatives at that by-election in 1933, we might have avoided what Sir Winston Churchill used to call the unnecessary war.
Certainly there is no intention on the part of the Conservative Party to turn this country into another Sparta. That was much more likely to have resulted from the Socialist Administration, which could have produced a Sparta without any defences. If we continue to spend 5½ per cent. of our G.N.P., growing again under a Conservative Administration, we ought to be able to play our fair part in carrying out the defence of this country.
I was particularly interested in the ruminations of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who spoke about what he said a Foreign Secretary could not say. Having been Secretary of State for Defence for six years, the right hon. Gentleman has great experience of all the international undertakings, obligations and discussions that went with them.
From the interesting speeches that we have heard this afternoon, from both sides of the House, and from the speech of the Foreign Secretary himself, certain points are beginning to emerge. I grant hon. Gentlemen opposite their optimism about Ostpolitik, from a party political point of view. I do not regard it as being successful yet, though I hope it will be, nor as being so party political as hon. Gentlemen opposite, for obvious reasons, would like it to be.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East said that the European conference was called soon after the Czechoslovakia incident, but it was partly, as we thought at the time, a smokescreen. Although I welcome it, and hope that it will go on under some of the conditions noted by the right hon. Member for Fulham, there is no sign yet that the Soviets are giving way in any practical terms. There is the acid test of Berlin. There were the manoeuvres in October, the greatest in Eastern Europe since the 1945 war. There is the growth in conventional forces, which are now greater than ever, in addition to the nuclear forces. There is the situation in the Middle East, outside the N.A.T.O. area, and of course there is the naval expansion all over the world.
Those are facts, and to an ordinary back bencher like myself who attends certain assemblies, these facts have been brought to our attention during the last few years. Until the Soviets make some advance by withdrawing or holding back on at least one of those—and Berlin is the acid test—it is understandable that we are still looking for some action before we become convinced that Ostpolitik is really working.
From a personal point of view, and I know that many hon. Members agree with me, I welcome the fact that Poland has come into this discussion because, after all, it was on behalf of the Poles,

after they were attacked by Germany, that we went into the war. The Poles have suffered more than any other country in Europe during the last century and a half, and particularly during the last 30 years.
Many of us knew and respected Mr. Rapacki. He was feeling his way ahead using, as the right hon. Member for Fulham said, the neutrals and the nonaligned possibly to arrive at some method of neutralisation in central Europe as a step towards the ultimate unity of Europe, on both sides of the Iron Curtain; but one must feel, as my right hon. Friend said, that the events of 1968 in Czechoslovakia put this process back, and one has yet to see a definite move forward.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the events of the spring of 1967, when there was an American-sponsored coup d'état in Greece, also helped to put things back?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, I do not. We have no reason to believe that the United States sponsored that coup. There was a similar occurrence in Turkey in about 1960, which eventually came right. These things happen, but they bear no comparison with the military occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968, and I have never heard any suggestion before from the benches opposite that there is any comparison between the two events.
I hope that, as has been said today by hon. Members on both sides of the House, events will lead to a settlement in the Middle East. Having been involved in this issue for many years, I believe that one difficulty about a settlement there is that neither side feels that any settlement will be guaranteed and underwritten in a way that will be effective. I believe, and I know that some hon. Gentlemen opposite agree with me, that we should look at the suggestion of a European guarantee for any settlement, always, of course, within the framework of the United Nations.
That suggestion has been put forward and sponsored by W.E.U. from time to time, and those seven countries, with Greece, Turkey and possibly Cyprus, might work out a system of guarantees which would give both the Arab world and the Israeli world the feeling that any settlement to which they might agree


would be adequately policed and carried out. Such an arrangement might let the two super-Powers, the two nuclear powers, off the hook. It might let them get out of the area and leave the countries in and around the Near East and the Mediterranean to police the area themselves.
I now propose to say something about negotiations with the Community. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend will make a statement tomorrow, but I think that it would be a pity to let this opportunity pass without congratulating him on the progress made so far.

Mr. John Mendelson: How does the hon. Gentleman know what progress has been made?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: From reading the newspapers, which I imagine the hon. Gentleman does from time to time although, listening to him now, one feels that he has not read them very recently. What is in the newspapers leads one to believe that progress has been made toward a five-year transitional period for agriculture and industry which is good; and also for a period of eight years for financial integration, which is an essential need in the negotiations. We shall look forward to getting further details tomorrow.
I remind hon. Gentlemen that in 1967, by an overwhelming majority of the House, the Government, who were then the Opposition, were supported in their view about going to the table to negotiate. I believe that this is necessary, not only for economic reasons, but also for political and defence reasons because, as many hon. Members have said, unless we get together on political, defence and economic matters, the future for ourselves and of Europe will not be as bright as it might otherwise be.

Mr. William Molloy: The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour Government had had a massive majority in favour of applying to join the Common Market. I feel sure that hon. Members who supported the Government in that vote were not thinking in terms of supporting a surrender. Hon. Members who voted against at that time believed that there was considerable support in the country for their view. I suggest that

although we were a small group at that time, we have a great deal of support in the country now.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: That is for the hon. Gentleman to decide for himself. The overwhelming majority of hon. Members supported the then Government in going to the table to negotiate—not a surrender but an agreement for the benefit of everybody in Europe, to which I believe Britain belongs.
I do not know what estimates hon. Members on both sides of the House have made about the future intentions of what used to be called the Soviet or Communist bloc, a term which is now out of date. As one tries to foresee events in the coming decade, one inevitably begins to wonder whether there is any plan on this side of the free world or, equally, on the other side of it, about which the ordinary hon. Members can do anything.
It is true that the Russians are negotiating S.A.L.T. and have entered into negotiations with Germany and East Europe about a European security conference. However, there is no hard evidence yet to show that this is anything but a delaying tactic to lull the West and to encourage the United States to withdraw. Those of us who have the opportunity of meeting members of Congress know that in some respects the U.S. is tending to turn isolationist. Are the Russians hoping to encourage the Americans to withdraw, so leaving Europe without an adequate defence or political effort to take their place?
Is this a period for the Soviets to encourage these tendencies to isolationism in America and, at the same time, to relieve themselves of the great burden of military development, so enabling them to give more time and resources to the needs of their domestic consumption? After all, while the Soviets are holding their present position in the West, they are pushing on in the Mediterranean, the Middle East and the Indian Ocean. There will be nothing to stop them in, say, 10 years' time from reverting to a period of expansion, when European power to resist may be the weaker.
At the other end is China, now recovering from the weakening effects of the cultural revolution. Is China doing the same thing? Does China intend to spend the 'seventies looking after its civilian


consumption, building up its nuclear forces and finding ways other than by military occupation of having some control over, South-East Asia, so that from the 'eighties onwards it can again turn to the Indian Ocean, Africa and South America to keep out the Russians, with whom the Chinese at present seem to be in conflict? We should be concentrating more on these aspects.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend comment on South-East Asia because I understand from my sources of information that those there welcome the United Kingdom's participation in the five-Power pact. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East said that two of them would be unaligned, but that is up to them to decide. It is not for him to tell them what steps to take against possible outside aggression.
I maintain that they welcome not only this military assistance but the will that we have shown to join in mutual aid projects. I hope that I do not sound arrogant in saying that many there feel that the United Kingdom and Commonwealth experience and judgment on military, political and economic matters over the last 10 to 15 years have been more objective and realistic than the judgments of many others.
The war in Vietnam is de-escalating. However, I believe that the North Vietnamese may have taken a harder beating than many of us realise and that their acceptance, following that, of a written peace treaty would be an admission of a non-victory and would undermine their position in North Vienam. Although we do not know what is really going on there, I do not take quite such a pessimistic view about the situation as many others do.
From my information, I gather that both the South Vietnamese and the Cambodians are doing very much better on their own now and have been for the last year or so; and I am sure that all hon. Members will wish them well in ordering their affairs and being able to return their countries to peace and prosperity.
It has been suggested that possibly some of us might help to support what is going on in these countries. It has been suggested that especially the ex-colonial nations could do more. Some of these

countries have been extremely critical of the United States' efforts and methods to preserve freedom in that part of the world. Some of us, it has been suggested, might help in cultural and humanitarian work. For example, the West Germans have provided a hospital ship, and this has been welcomed locally.
We must not forget that South-East Asia is an enormous area. It has a population of about 350 million people, which is larger than that of Europe, Africa, or North America. It is to be hoped that this area can return to some sort of peace and stability for the hapiness of the people who live there. I hope and believe that we in Britain can play a not negligible part in those development.
Can my right hon. Friend give an indication of what view Her Majesty's Government take of these developments in the coming 10 years? Do the Government believe that Russia and China are so mutually antagonistic that there is no hope in future of them one day solving some of their problems? Are they simply now playing it cool so that in, say, 10 years' time they will turn on the free world again? As the right hon. Member for Fulham pointed out, we are entitled to hope, as I shall continue to hope, for the best.
However, until we can be more certain of what is likely to occur in the next decade, we must keep up our guard in N.A.T.O., O.E.C.D. in the West; and in the East maintain a British presence east of Suez, continue, by the Colombo Plan and other methods, to support those on the other side of the world who are endeavouring to make economic and social reforms. In these endeavours we must work with our Commonwealth and other allies throughout the world.

7.8 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: Like other hon. Members, I shall deal particularly with points relating to détente, not only between East and West but between what may broadly be described as North and South. I will suggest a greater use for détente of the Council of Europe, about which the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) knows so much.
First, however, I shall comment on the position of China and Russia referred to


by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. In July of this year, with three other hon. Members, I visited the Mongolian Peoples Republic as the guest of the Mongolian Parliament. Mongolia is an enormous country which lies between Russia and China and has a population, which is mostly nomadic, of about one million people. That is well known. What is not so well known is the fact that it is an independent State and a member of the United Nations.
We were puzzled to discover that we from the British Parliament were the only people from the non-Communist world ever to have been invited. I do not know the reason for this and I do not pretend to speak for my colleagues. However, I believe that they wanted us to see, first of all, that although Russia had complete physical and economic power over Outer Mongolia, the country remained essentially Mongolian—whereas, as may be generally known, Inner Mongolia is nothing more than a province of China and has lost its Mongolian characteristics because of ruthless persecution. Secondly, they wanted us to see that a diet of meat and fermented mare's milk made a pretty tough people, and, small in numbers as they were, they would put up a pretty good delaying action against a Chinese ground act unless China were ready to have a world war.
Reverting to my main theme, which is the use of the Council of Europe in détente, the Council will still exist after we have entered the Community. The Community deals chiefly with economic matters such as trade, industry, agriculture and finance. But the Council of Europe concentrates on political, cultural, legal and social matters, and it will continue even when the Community gets bigger. We can see that the two organisations are complementary if we compare the agenda of the European Parliament with the agenda of the Assembly of the Council of Europe. The task of the European Parliament is to implement the Treaty of Rome, and the Council of Europe has a much wider range of problems to discuss.
When Britain is a member of the Community, like France, Italy and Germany, the big countries, we shall have a delegation there of 36 members, but we shall still have the smaller delegation of 18 members in the Assembly of the

Council of Europe, with our Foreign Secretary on the Committee of Ministers. If we seek a wider Europe and refuse to become land-locked in Brussels or wherever it may be, the Council of Europe is the key.
The statute of the Council of Europe allows the Assembly to discuss a wide range of topical matters. For example, the Torrey Canyon accident was discussed right away. We are not allowed to discuss defence so we have neutrals among the members and are acceptable to the East. Furthermore, members can choose to take part in its activities in a certain range or the whole range. It is also possible for non-member States to take part in many of its activities. For instance, the Soviet Union has engaged in patent discussions in Strasbourg.
When we are in the Community, the British Government and delegates to the Assembly can see that the Council plays its part in establishing better relations with Eastern Europe. The place to begin is obviously in technical co-operation on matters like public health.
There was much confusion at Question Time a couple of days ago about the difference between the Assembly and the European Parliament. There are many democratic countries who will be in the Assembly but not in the Community. I refer to Cyprus, Iceland, Malta, and Turkey, as well as the neutrals, Austria, Sweden and Switzerland. These countries will see that they have to have a place for discussion, and this is where we can have Eastern European Ministers—not Members of Parliament, because they do not exist as we do—coming to talk to us, as do our own Ministers.
On North-South relations, which has been mentioned, as opposed to East-West, the Council of Europe in recent years has looked out not only across Europe but across the seas to the developing countries and has welcomed speakers from all over the world. In the first session at which I took the chair, we were addressed by U Thant and by Ministers from Asia, Africa and South America. One of the reasons why the members of the Assembly of the Council of Europe have regularly each year passed resolutions requesting that we should be members of the European Parliament, that is to say, of the Six, is that they want the


British in it, as they frankly admit, because of our tradition of understanding and concern for the developing countries. Our friends in the Assembly have frequently argued that as a former colonial power, we are of great value because we are in a position, as Members of Parliament or as Ministers, to press the rich industrial countries of Europe to do more for the developing countries in which we have a long-standing interest.
Two years ago in the House we debated aid. I do not apologise for returning again to an argument used in that debate. In The Guardian of 2nd December 1968, Mr. William Davis wrote:
… aid must not be confused with charity. As a trading nation, Britain cannot afford to brush aside the worries of the developing countries. They are our customers.
The chief manufacturing industries in my constituency are steel and footwear. I frequently summarise my argument to my constituents in this way: we cannot sell steel products and footwear to people who have a low standard of living, who live in mud huts and who go around barefoot. That is an argument of the enlightened self-interest of a trading nation. Another argument which we must never forget is that as a rich country we have a duty to the less fortunate people in the world.
When the last East African countries became independent, while the present Foreign Secretary was Prime Minister, it fell to me to encourage those countries to take advice from some non-British economists as to where their best interests lay in their relations with the Community. They took the advice of a Swedish or Swiss economist—I forgot which—and they have linked themselves with the Community. Incidentally, this kind of attitude towards our former colonies is of great significance. It was giving them the opportunity of doing what they considered best and giving them good advice on it—not on the subject but on how to find out. It shows a difference between the relationship between Britain and the Anglophone countries, on the one hand, and France and the Francophone countries on the other.
To summarise, the leaders of the new Commonwealth African countries see Britain as they saw the old British

colonial servant, the former British governor and, I like to think, the former British High Commissioners, as decent men interested in the wellbeing of their countries. The result is that these African leaders have high expectations of what British Governments will do They believe that there is a sort of moral sense in British Governments. Hon. Members may disagree, but I hope they will bear with me, because this is part of the historical development and the change over from colony to self-governing country, when I say that these African leaders are profoundly shocked when, as in the case of the sale of arms to South Africa, we appear not to be living up to our own high standards.
I am very much a Francophile. The French impact is different. The Francophone leaders of the new African countries have an enormous respect for French culture and for the French language. But I do not think that it has ever occurred to them that French Government policy was guided principally by moral considerations. I have talked with most of the Anglophone leaders in Africa, and many Francophone ministers. The chief reason why there is this apparently baffling difference between the attitude of the French language countries to France and of the English language countries to Britain on the subject of the sale of arms to South Africa is that our colleagues in the Commonwealth expect a higher standard from Britain. We seem to them to be guided by moral considerations.
A few years ago the Council of Europe was addressed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant. One of the things he said was that he welcomed our increasing contacts not only with Eastern Europe but with the outside world. He called on us not to sink back in our own "prosperous provincialism" in Europe because we were rich and we had a duty to the outside world.
Collectively, Members of Parliament sitting in the Assembly of the Council of Europe have a world rôle. They are important because of our countries' energy, skill, wealth and size—together they have a population of more than 300 million people. Our history makes us look out across the seas. Today it is not to conquer but to foster the institutions, the


culture and the languages which Europeans took to so many places in the world.
Today, the Assembly recognises the duty of the developed countries to the developing countries, and we frequently remind ourselves that our duties did not end when we pulled down our national flags.
We also look outward to our less happy fellow Europeans. One day, the Communist countries and Spain and Portugal may qualify for full membership by having democratic Parliaments. Until that day, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will join with the other member Governments of the Council of Europe in pressing forward to solve together technical problems of health, education, air and water pollution, and so on. Such problems can be solved more easily, given European co-operation. Poland and Spain for example have no democracy as we know it, but they are European countries, and the Council is the Council of Europe.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. John Cordle: I intervene in this debate with great diffidence, because no one wants to draw attention to the problem of arms for South Africa since it could have an effect upon the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference which, I understand, is due to take place in Singapore.
I am impressed by the harmonious way in which this debate has been conducted. It has been a robust debate, and it has drawn attention to the threat of communism in the world. In that connection, one must stress the importance of North-South relations.
I am not completely sure that hon. Members appreciate what is happening in Africa at the moment as the communists spread their influence. Amongst Africans, it is accepted that, in the east, there is the erosion by Chinese communists, and that in the north there is erosion in the Mediterranean in the shape of the communist fleet there, together with the air stages in Cairo and Libya and along the north coast. Possibly it is not fully understood that on the west coast there has been an infiltration of communist opinion and influence, especially since the civil war in Nigeria.
I left Nigeria on Sunday morning. I have visited the country three times in the course of the year, and I have to report to the House that in Nigeria there is a difference in attitude towards the United Kingdom. It has been brought about by the suggestion that we intend to supply arms to South Africa.
I am not against seeing that Africa is fully manned and that the Indian Ocean is properly defended. I go along with that 100 per cent. However, as the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) said, the Africans are adopting an extraordinary attitude towards us because of the moral implications of supplying arms to South Africa. They have made it clear to me that, if there is a threat to the Indian Ocean area and to South Africa, they feel that there is a threat to them. Their view is that perhaps we should consider the possibility of a joint Commonwealth defence force. There is something in that suggestion. It has been put forward not simply by those who are in the Nigerian Cabinet but even by the Head of State, who made it together with some suggestions which make one sit up and take notice.
There is no doubt in my mind that, because of our pronounced intention, even though we have not yet made a firm decision, they feel that we shall decide to supply arms to South Africa. The result is that we are being left out in the cold whenever concessions are granted in Nigeria.
I am sorry to report to the House that we have lost out to the Russians over the supply of a steel mill in Lagos. The Russians first got their foot in the door during the civil war when we were unable to supply the full quota of arms required by the Nigerians. That was the beginning of Russian erosion into the area. It is also regrettable that because, of our reported intention to supply arms to South Africa, we have not been considered by the Nigerians as possible suppliers of car assembly plants. I was sorry to hear that Japanese and German firms have been awarded the concessions. That is largely due to the policy that it is feared that we may adopt, though I pray that we shall not do so in the end.
Other matters come to my mind. However, I wanted to warn the House that Nigerian attitudes towards us are hardening, and there are little signs of the good


will that we enjoyed at the end of the civil war.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Peter Shore: I intend to speak on Europe, which is by far the most urgent, most important and most menacing issue in foreign policy today.
I make no apology for focusing attention on this subject. It is a deplorable state of affairs that, in this very far-reaching debate covering the whole of our international affairs and interests, hon. Members are obliged to secure what time they can to discuss an issue which is so important that it deserves a separate day to itself. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked for such a debate. However, I understand that we are not to get it before Christmas and, as a result, we are driven to these tactics. So, at 7.30 in the evening, I find myself on my feet as the first speaker in the debate to direct his whole attention to the future of our country, because that is what is at stake in the negotiations now being conducted in Brussels.
Tomorrow, we are to have a further progress report from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will tell us about the latest developments in his talks in Brussels and we shall hear why he has decided to drop his original request for transitional periods of three years for industrial goods and six years for agriculture, and to accept instead the counterproposals of the Six.
Whatever the right hon. Gentleman says and whatever explanation he offers, I do not think that many hon. Members expect much comfort. I can best explain why I take a very pessimistic view about the negotiations and why I think that they are on a disaster course by harking back to the very beginning of the current application and to the speech delivered in Luxembourg on 30th June by the then Chancellor of the Duchy, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on behalf of the Government. He set out the terms that he was prepared to accept, and the matters on which he would engage the Six in negotiations.
On that occasion, two grave errors were made. The first and most important was to accept on that date without demur, without qualification, the common agri-

cultural policy of the Common Market. I lay stress on this for one reason, and a very important one. In the previous negotiations, the C.A.P. has of course featured in, indeed, been a central feature of, debate. But it was a fact that, right up until 1st January of this year, it was still in what was called its transitional phase. This meant that, if Britain had joined at any time before the beginning of this year, she would have had the opportunity to participate in the final policy decisions which have given permanence to the C.A.P. in this post-transitional period.
No doubt Governments have previously thought that they would be able so to reshape and remould the C.A.P. before it took permanent shape as to make it acceptable to, and bearable by, this country. That opportunity passed on 1st January this year, so the right hon. Gentleman and the Government made a cardinal error on 30th June, in including in their opening statement the acceptance of the now permanent C.A.P.
The importance of this is obvious. I will not weary the House with figures and costs and so on, but I would mention that, in our own White Paper published in February this year, we made certain estimates of the cost. Two different points are being considered in the negotiations today. The first is what is the percentage key which has to be applied to Britain's contribution under the C.A.P. if we are to join in a transitional period, and what we shall be asked to pay when our own transitional period comes to an end.
The Commission itself, which has this rather pleasing habit of leaking its papers and statements—I sometimes wish that the Government were equally forthcoming—has made it clear that the key which they are proposing is an alternative roughly equivalent to 21 per cent. for this country. I will not weary the House with calculations, but, roughly, this will be well over £300 million a year in the transitional period. This, together with the indirect balance of payments cost which would follow the introduction of European prices for Britain's food would undoubtedly push the cost of entry at once, or as the transitional period advanced, to the £500 million a year level. I am putting a very modest figure on it indeed.
But lying ahead, at the end of the British transitional period, there is the full rigour of the now permanent c.a.p. whose financial regulation has the force of a treaty in itself and which cannot be changed unless by the unanimous consent of all the existing members. The House should know that, under this permanent financial regulation, by which every country of the Six has the right to veto any change, the contribution consists of the total yield of the levies on agriculture, the total yield of the customs duties of goods coming into the country and, in addition, 1 per cent. of the yield of a value-added tax which we would be obliged to introduce.
The yield of this, although we may argue about estimates, is somewhere beyond the £450 million, up to the £650 million, level. This is a very heavy burden, so heavy that anyone who today offers the British people entry of the Common Market as a short-cut to growth, expansion and accelerated prosperity in this country is in my view guilty of an act of gross deception on the British people.
Every £100 million which is minus on our balance of payments—we are talking of figures now and, I say very responsibly, of figures of the order of £300 million to £500 million a year—must mean a restriction on our rate of growth, and our present rate of growth is dreadfully unsatisfactory. Unless the Government can convince us that they know how to solve this problem, how they can have this growth with a deteriorating balance of payments, until they know how to square that circle, the claimants of this growth can simply be ignored.
I say this during these negotiations with greater conviction than say in the negotiations which the Prime Minister himself undertook in 1961–63, because then we were still in a world of very high tariffs around the industrial countries, and for Britain to be excluded was something of a threat. Therefore, the possibilities of benefits to the British economy by entering a large tariff-free area were great, or thought to be great.
I do not quarrel with that proposition, but what people should realise, which the Government have consistently understated, is the extent to which, in the last few years, tariffs in the industrial countries have come down—to the point at which

most people and most manufacturers would agree they no longer constitute a major threat or obstacle to trade between the industrialised nations.
I asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry a Question, which he answered on 4th December, which illustrates my point. I asked him what was the tariff on British cars entering France, which I took simply par example, in 1960, 1965 and 1970, and what the tariffs would be from 1st January, 1972. This is without Britain joining the Common Market. The answer was that, in 1960, when the Prime Minister was first contemplating entry, the tariff on British cars was 30 per cent., in 1965 it was 25 per cent., in 1970 it is 15 per cent., and on 1st January, 1972, under the Kennedy Round it will be 11 per cent. That is the extent to which tariffs have fallen and are still falling.
Anyone who imagines today that there are many compensating advantages, post-Kennedy, to be gained from entering a so-called enlarged free trade area which can in any way offset the onerous burden which would be placed upon us by the C.A.P. is simply deluding himself. He will also be deluding his listeners.
I said that two great mistakes had been committed in this negotiation. I have said that the first was to accept the common agricultural policy of the Common Market in the opening statement of 30th June.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The figures the hon. Gentleman used were on a 21 per cent. key?

Mr. Shore: Yes. We need not worry too much about the details of the figures. Any time the Foreign Secretary wants to engage with me he can.
The second error which was committed on 30th June was when the then Chancellor of the Duchy agreed to go along with the Six as far as they were prepared to go in the matter of economic and monetary union but at the same time failed to include this new dimension of the Rome Treaty among the matters which are to be talked about and negotiated in the course of entry.
The House has not been greatly helped with information. I am told that when Parliament first decided to apply for entry to the Common Market in 1961 there


was not even a translation of the Rome Treaty in the Library. I am certain that no translation of the proposals for Economic and Monetary Union were available to the House when Ministers agreed to go as far as the Six were themselves prepared to go along this road and did not include it as a major subject for negotiation. We have at last got, through the Library, some copies; and we are grateful for them. For the benefit of hon. Members who have not been through it I will point out briefly why this is so important and why it is an outrage that it has not been included for discussion in negotiation with the Six.
The Report of the Werner Committee, which was set up by the Heads of Government of the Six to report precisely on the matter of Economic and Monetary Union, deals with five main points of economic policy. The first is exchange rate policy. Here the proposals are that during the transitional period which is proposed for economic and monetary union a common exchange rate policy should be agreed; that the individual member States should fix together their exchange rates for ever; that this unity of exchange rates should be expressed by the adoption of a common currency for the whole of Europe, or at least for the countries in membership of the Common Market; that, together with this, there should be an agreed policy for intervention in the foreign exchange market and there should be a common policy for the management of reserves. This is far-reaching.
The second point was that there should be a general agreed policy on interest rates, on bank rate and on liquidity throughout the area. The third point was that there should be agreed objectives on the short term and medium term policies of the members of the Community and that this should include agreement on the levels of growth, on targets of employment, and on prices.
Lastly, in the area of public expenditure and taxation—this is the most intimate area—the Committee recommended that the budgets of the countries concerned—their aggregates—should be agreed and mutually inspected; that there should be, not only agreement on annual budgets, but agreement on the

public expenditure projections over some years ahead, with which we are now familiar in the House; and, finally, that there should be a progressive harmonisation of tax policy extending beyond the value-added tax which is already agreed and taking in excise duties and taxes which are likely to affect companies as well.
This is a formidable programme for economic and monetary unification. The Committee ended its Report with these conclusions. First, it gave this definition:
Economic and monetary union means that the principal decisions of economic policy will be taken at Community level and therefore that the necessary powers will be transferred from the national plane to the Community plane.
The Report goes on to make this point which I invite the House to consider carefully:
These transfers of responsibility and the creation of the coresponding Community institutions represent a process of fundamental political significance which entails the progressive development of political co-operation. Economic and monetary union is thus seen as a leaven for the development of the political union which in the long run it will be unable to do without.
That is as clear and unambiguous a statement of the objectives of economic, monetary and poliitcal union as we are likely to find anywhere.
The response of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whom I am very glad to see here—I am always glad to see him in London rather than that he should be anywhere else—when pressed about the Report of the Werner Committee is to do what I regret to say that some of my hon. Friends do—deny its significance and status and pretend that it is not there.
I will do my best to say what the status of the Report is. The Chancellor of the Duchy at least will know that there occurred a very significant sentence in the communique signed at The Hague in December, 1969, by the Heads of Government of the Six in which they solemnly agreed to work out amongst themselves during 1970 proposals for an economic and monetary union. They then set up the Werner Committee to advise them on how to achieve this union. The Werner Committee is presided over by the Prime Minister of Luxembourg and its membership includes a number of very senior people.

Mr. Joel Barnett: It has not been accepted.

Mr. Shore: If my hon. Friend would stop muttering and listen he might learn something. This June the Committee made its interim report. It was considered by the Council of Ministers of the Six, which noted the Committee's conclusions with satisfaction and asked the Committee then to complete its final Report in October of this year. The Committee has done this. I have read to the House the conclusions in that Report.
It is said that the Report has not yet been wholly adopted and swallowed by the Six. Of course it has not. This is not the way in which the Rome Treaty and its mechanisms work. But to pretend that there is not a heavy and serious commitment to economic and monetary union is nothing more nor less than self-deception. The Committee had behind it from the very beginning the full weight of the Heads of Government of the Six.
I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy can answer, and will be prepared to answer at some stage, certain questions. If he cannot, perhaps one of his hon. Friends can. What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own view of the desirability of economic, monetary and political union? Does he believe in, and will he work for, the implementation of the Report, with the objectives and conclusions of the kind I have stated?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I take entirely the view of the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) that we should go as far and as fast as the best of them.

Mr. Shore: The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot get away with that. I remember very well that the phrase used by my right hon. Friend was in relation to a very general concept, before it had even begun to be worked out. We are now dealing with a Report that was not even finished before my right hon. Friend and his colleagues, of whom I was one, had the misfortune to be replaced by the Conservative Party.

Mr. Rippon: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was said after that

declaration at The Hague in 1969 to which he has just referred and which the last Administration, of which he was a member, supported?

Mr. Shore: I do not want to bother with the small change of that, and it is the small change. The objective was stated in a single sentence in the communiqué. Any serious person knows that it now amounts to virtually a second Rome Treaty, that it proposes a transitional period and an entirely new extension of supra-national power and the institutions to go with it.
It is not good enough for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to refer back to a single sentence. I want to know what he thinks about the objectives and timetable outlined in that document. Does he take it seriously? Is he taking the view—and is this why he looks so complacent—that if Britain gets in we have no intention of letting this development happen but shall use our power to veto it? We should all know. The House should know, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's negotiating partners should know, and the British people should know. It is a great error that that is not included in the negotiations.
There are other major matters that concern the future prosperity of this country which the right hon. and learned Gentleman might well have included in the discussions. I think particularly of arrangements for sterling. I know that the Commission has worries about this. No one will say that it is a small problem. But it looks as though all the important issues that are raised are not to be discussed as part of the negotiations but are to be dealt with somewhere else. In what sort of forum I do not know; with what kind of reporting to the House and discussion, I do not know. But certainly it is not to be brought into the main forum of the debate and the discussion with the Common Market negotiators.
I find it extraordinary that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others should, in the light of all the facts, still try to argue and pretend that there are no serious matters, no serious questions of sovereignty for this country, involved in the negotiations. The right hon. and learned Gentleman addressed the Monday


Club not long ago and talked about the possible loss of sovereignty. He said:
These fears arise out of a misunderstanding of the nature of the European Community we are seeking to join.
Does he really think that? Does he really think that it has no supra-national quality, that the agencies, the policies, the purpose, are not to achieve economic, monetary and political union with an ever-growing increase in the power and influence of the supra-national institutions as opposed to the national ones? Does not he accept that that is so?
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does accept it, why does he go out of his way to dismiss what he calls fears of them? I think that the fear is the other way round, and that he is afraid to admit to the meaning of these things and to put before the British people the real implications of the negotiations.

Mr. David Crouch: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that we are negotiating a different Rome Treaty from that to which the last Administration, of which he was a member, sought to become a party? If that is his case, he is misleading the House. Is he saying that there was never any thought of political union, of an economic union, in the Rome Treaty that he was a party to negotiating to adhere to?

Mr. Shore: If I were to answer the hon. Gentleman in detail, I should have to go back over my speech, to which he was not listening. I started by making the point that there have been certain very important changes, the most important being the end of the transitional period at the end of last year. There has also been the most important development of the desire by the Six to go forward to economic and monetary union.
I close by saying only this about sovereignty. I do not think for a moment that people in this country are afraid of giving up particular aspects of sovereignty for specific purposes of which they approve. We have done this in many areas, for example, when we have signed certain treaties. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would be the first to point out that we signed the United Nations Charter, and much more recently we signed the Non-Proliferation Pact. But that is not the issue.
It is also obvious that the people of this country have recognised the importance of sovereignty and have given national sovereignty to more people and more nations in the past 20 years than probably any other country in history. What the people of this country are not prepared to do is to hand over to Europe or anyone else the general right of self-government, which, if the proposals for economic and monetary union are carried through, will be largely denied this Parliament and the people of this country.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)

7.59 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement regarding the dispute in the electricity supply industry.
Following the rejection on 2nd December by the trade union side of the National Joint Council for the Electricity Supply Industry of an improved offer for industrial employees, the trade unions concerned have imposed from 7th December a ban on overtime and a work to rule, which in the last three days has resulted in reductions of voltage and interruption of supply, causing serious disruption of industry and services, and widespread inconvenience to the public and some hardship. At the National Joint Council meeting on 2nd December, the employers' side indicated its intention, following the rejection of its offer, to use the procedure provided by the Council's constitution, which requires the reference of any unsolved difference at the request of either side to the Industrial Court or other agreed form of arbitration. This has not proved acceptable to the unions. Representatives of the employers' side, at their request, saw officials of my Department on 4th December to report the breakdown in negotiations. My officials have also had a meeting on 7th December with representatives of the unions concerned.
The Electricity Council has also reported to my Department that it has been informed that the Electrical Power Engineers' Association has instructed its members to ban overtime and to work to rule from Monday, 14th December. This decision follows a breakdown on 4th


December in the negotiations on a revised salary structure for supervisory and technical grades.
I have today met representatives of the Electrical Power Engineers' Association and asked them to reconsider their decision to take industrial action from 14th December.
I have also seen officers of the trade unions representing the industrial employees and asked them to explain to me their refusal, which they confirm, to take their case to arbitration as provided for by the industry's agreed procedure.
I shall report to the House again as soon as possible.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement is totally unsatisfactory? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Is he aware that, by deciding to make an example of the power workers—[Interruption.]—as a reward for the years of peaceful co-operation they have given in the provision of electricity supply, and by failing to see that the area boards made proper contingency plans to meet the consequences of this showdown—[Interruption.]—which—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise from either side is equally wrong.

Mrs. Castle: As a result of failure to see that the area boards made proper contingency plans to meet the consequences of the showdown which the Government have deliberately sought, the right hon. Gentleman has exposed the people to serious inconvenience and the interruption of vital services like hospitals.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the difference between this dispute going to arbitration and the setting up by his own Department of a court of inquiry, which would be the normal procedure in a serious situation like this? Is he further aware that we shall expect another statement from him tomorrow, and that if he has not in the meantime really started on foot talks or inquiries to settle the dispute we shall want an immediate debate?

Mr. Carr: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman needs leave of the House to speak again within this debate.

Mr. Carr: May I have leave to speak again? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We have not sought any showdown with this industry or any other. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I must remind the right hon. Lady that she herself produced to this House a White Paper which said that the wage increases for 1970 should be within the bracket of 2½ to 4½ per cent. In this case—[Interruption.]—if the Leader of the Opposition will contain himself for a moment I can proceed—in this case an initial offer was made of almost 9 per cent. and an improved offer was made of 10 per cent., which was greater, I may say to the right hon. Gentleman, by a significant amount than the increased productivity in this industry during the year. What we have been inquiring about is why the agreed procedure should not be followed. I utterly reject the right hon. Lady's suggestion, and it is surprising to hear trade unionists in this House suggesting that it is wrong to ask an industry to pursue the procedure on which it itself has agreed.

Mrs. Castle: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady also needs the leave of the House to speak again.

Mrs. Castle: With leave of the House, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the policy we presented to the House was a productivity, prices and incomes policy? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is he further aware that he and his colleagues rejected it at that time because what they believe in is an incomes policy while prices are set free, an incomes policy under which workers with the record of productivity in this industry are being treated as an example and are being penalised? Will he now answer my question? If he is so anxious for this matter to go to arbitration, why does not he set up a court of inquiry and end this disruption in the country?

Mr. Carr: By leave of the House, I say to the right hon. Lady that what she and her colleagues may have presented to the House was one thing but what they achieved was, as so often, quite another. What they achieved in the first six months


of this year was earnings rising six times faster than production and prices rising at a faster rate than they had done since the Labour Government of 20 years earlier. That is what they achieved. That is the answer to the first part of her question.
The answer to the second part is still this: when an industry has an agreed procedure it is, in my view, and, I should have thought, in the view of many Min inters of Labour of both parties before me, right to try and see and persuade the industry to use its own procedure on which it has agreed. As to what may happen now, I ask the House—at least, I ask any hon. Members who are more interested in getting a settlement than causing trouble—[Interruption.]—to remember that I have completed my discussions with the unions only within the last hour. I want to consider what they have said to me and I am sure that the unions will think about what I have said to them.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: What did the right hon. Gentleman tell them?

Mr. Carr: One would have thought that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), a trade unionist himself, might have known enough about these procedures to know that the basis of this sort of consultation is very often confidence, and that is what I am keeping.

Mr. John Page: . In view of the disastrous effect of the power cuts upon both domestic and industrial life, can my right hon. Friend give us the reasons why the trade unions decided not to follow the agreed procedure?

Mr. Carr: By leave of the House: I should like to repeat what I said at the end of my last answer, namely, that discussions did and should take place in confidence. I wish to consider what was said to me and I think that the unions wish to consider what I said to them.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would help the House on the question of arbitration. One may have misunderstood one's reading of the constitution of the Joint Industrial Council—I am sure

that the right hon. Gentleman has studied it—but does it or does it not provide that either side may take an issue to arbitration, a majority on the employers' side? If that is so, and he will tell us whether it is, have the employers invoked this procedure, or is there something in the procedure which makes it impossible for them to do so?
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House would feel that if he were to set up a court of inquiry, or some other suitable inquiry, which it is within his power to do, the trade union side would then be right to drop all industrial action pending the working by the court of inquiry which I proposed to the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend yesterday? Will he also emphasise this before he himself takes a decision in this matter? Is he prepared to accept that?
Thirdly, as there is some doubt about whether it is the Government who are behind the so-called confrontation, or whether they are leaving the matter entirely to the employers, has the right hon. Gentleman studied the broadcast of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture yesterday in which the used the words, "We have offered 10 per cent.", in which "we" must mean the Government, for it is a Minister who is speaking? Is it in fact the Government who have offered 10 per cent. and who are standing on it, or have the employers some degree of negotiating freedom?
Finally I put this to the right hon. Gentleman. He will be aware, as the whole House is aware, of the concern about the position of hospitals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is not a laughing matter for hon. Members opposite. I think that most hon. Members opposite are as concerned about this as we are. In that case, they might join with us in asking the right hon. Gentleman to give up his stiff-necked attitude and to deal with the problem.
I recognise that a question about hospitals should not be directed to the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but I hope that he will take charge of it as he is now answering in the House. Many hospitals are concerned because they have not been given notice when power cuts were to be made, although they were on a previous occasion.
I think that I am right in saying that facing a very difficult situation, the Electricity Council is planning the power cuts by zoning first one area and then another, on a basis which it regards as fair over the whole country. It must have some idea in advance in its own mind of which area is to be affected. I do not press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer now, but will he undertake, through his right hon. Friend who is responsible for these matters, to represent to the Council that if it is to make cuts, if it is forced to make cuts in one area or another, it should, as on a previous occasion, give two hours' notice to the hospitals? All of us recognise the difficulties for baby incubators, those in iron lungs, those on kidney machines, and so on. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do no more than to say that he will press his right hon. Friend to see whether that can be represented to the Electricity Council.

Mr. Carr: By leave of the House; I will, of course, go into the last point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, but I think that I can assure him that such requests have already been made long since. The reason for the difficulties which the boards are having in giving notice is, as I understand, entirely the result of the nature of the work to rule and the unpredictability of the work to rule in the different areas. The boards are doing all they can and as much as they ever could before to give notice, but, owing to the unpredictability and the nature of the work to rule, it is that much more difficult for them on this occasion than in the past, but they have been asked, and I must stress that they are doing their best and will give notice wherever possible.
I turn back to the procedure in the industry. I made it clear in my initial statement that the Joint Council's constitution required the reference of any unsolved difference, at the request of either side, to the Industrial Court, or other agreed form of arbitration and that the employers' side tried and wished to take that initiative, but it was not acceptable to the unions. I presume that the employers could have insisted on doing so, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the House whether it is sensible for one side to push ahead with arbitration like that against the wish, or at least the willingness, of the other side. [HON.

MEMBERS: "The Industrial Relations Bill"]. The Council decided that it was not wise or sensible to do so.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carr: I will not.
One of the things which I have clearly been exploring is whether it is possible and fruitful to get these discussions back on the proper rails laid down in the industry's own agreed procedures. It is better to get it on to its own agreed procedure if that is possible. If it is not possible, other possibilities will have to be looked into.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that both sides of the House would stress to the unions the importance of resuming normal working if all parties were agreed to, say, the court of inquiry, or any other means. I will hear this in mind and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for saying what he did. I should thank him a great deal more deeply if he showed a little more care in some of his other remarks.

An Hon. Member: Tell the truth.

Mr. Robert Mellish: Do not be provocative.

Mr. Speaker: Any debater can do without the help of noise.

Mr. Carr: The Opposition Chief Whip says from a sitting posture that I must not make provocative statements; perhaps he will pass that message to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
The Government have not been, nor have I been, nor have any of my officials been, stiff-necked, I think was the right hon. Gentleman's phrase, in dealing with this matter. Since the negotiations broke down last Wednesday evening, my officials have seen the employers' side twice and both divisions of the union, and I have seen them and that is not stiff-necked and that is not withholding the proper services of my Department.

Mr. Harold Wilson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman requires the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Wilson: I ask the leave of the House simply to ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply to my question about the statement of the Minister of Agriculture


in which he said "we" have offered 10 per cent.

Mr. Carr: By leave of the House. I have not studied or seen that statement—[Interruption.] I am not disputing that my right hon. Friend said it. It is quite clear what the Electricity Council has offered. We do not need his nit-picking on words. [Interruption.] That is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is doing in the middle of a national crisis. He knows as well as I do that the Electricity Council made the offer, just as it made the offer when he was in power, and we have leaned on the parties and given them instructions much less than he did.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: In his answer my right hon. Friend referred to the work-to-rule procedure in regard to which there is some puzzlement in the country. Can my right hon. Friend say what is the status and authority of these rules under the agreed procedures, how they are related to basic rates of pay, what are the provisions for their supervision and enforceability, when they were last revised and whether they are to be revised again?

Mr. Carr: By leave of the House. I cannot answer my right hon. and learned Friend in detail but I am aware of the fact that, I think it was the chairman of one of the boards, or a leading member of the Electricity Council, said in a broadcast last night that the men were not working to the industry's rules but to their own rules.

Mr. Palmer: Would the right hon. Gentleman assist the House by unravelling a little further this mystery of why the electricity boards did not refer the dispute to arbitration? This has often been done in the past. Would he say whether the boards were under any pressure from his Department not to refer the matter to arbitration?
The boards have a statutory obligation to maintain continuity of supply. To do that, they must make agreements with their employees. Would he say whether the boards are at present free to make their own terms with the unions even if it involves an increase on 10 per cent. or are they under instruction from the Government not to go beyond 10 per cent? If

they are under instruction from the Government will the right hon. Gentleman say what statutory authority he has for giving that instruction?

Mr. Carr: They are not under instruction from the Government.

Mr. Russell Kerr: They are being led.

Mr. Carr: At no time has any pressure been put on them not to go to arbitration. As I said earlier, at the breakdown last Wednesday, the Council suggested arbitration and it has not proceeded with it only because it thought it unwise to do so—

Mr. Palmer: Very foolish.

Mr. Carr: —in view of the unwillingness of the unions. That is the point that I have been exploring today.

Mr. Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second point I put to him, whether the electricity boards are free in negotiating a settlement even if it means an increase on the 10 per cent?

Mr. Carr: I answered that point when I said that the boards were not under instruction.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Is it not a fact that the kernel of this problem is the refusal of the unions to go to arbitration? Did not the unions tell the right hon. Gentleman that the reason why they would not go to arbitration was that he and his right hon. Friends had preempted any satisfactory agreement coming from any arbitration—

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Orme: —by the statement on the 10 per cent? Is he aware that unless he sets up an independent board of inquiry he will not have the confidence of the unions in dealing with this matter?

Mr. Carr: With the leave of the House. The suggestion as to why the unions would not go to arbitration is absolutely untrue—

Mr. Heffer: Tell us why.

Mr. Carr: —because the unions have much more reason to have faith in arbitration today than they had prior to 18th June when there was a statutory prices and incomes policy in being with


detailed criteria laid down in the White Paper which said that for 1970 the maximum increase was to be 4½ per cent. They were offered 10 per cent.

Mr. David James: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that many of us on this side of the House feel that any inflationary settlement is a direct fraud on old-age pensioners in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]. Will he also agree that it is fair to say that the mantle of the old-fashioned Victorian industrialist grinding the faces of the poor has now descended on certain trade union leaders?

Mr. Carr: With the leave of the House. Of course we realise the effect of inflationary wage settlements. Indeed, that is the reason why we have been saying since the summer that unless we can reduce the level of inflationary wage settlements those who will suffer most will be the pensioners and those on fixed incomes and secondly the lowest-paid workers. We will not advance real earnings or real prosperity until we bring down the level of inflationary wage settlements.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that this Government have made it perfectly clear ever since 18th June last that they intended to control the rate of increase of prices in the nationalised industries, as in the case of the Post Office and the coal industry? Would he make it abundantly clear now that a settlement in excess of 10 per cent. would be highly inflationary and would be regarded by the overwhelming majority of the general public as an extortionate settlement by a monopoly group of workers in the electricity industry?

Mr. Carr: By leave of the House. We have made it absolutely clear that inflationary settlements above what are already generous offers can only bring hardship instead of prosperity to the people of this country. That is why we must ask the country to realise the implications of what is going on and to understand the absolute importance of halting this onrush of inflationary settlements which we have had in the last 12 months.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those of us who agree with him that inflammatory speeches in this situation are not helpful will have every sympathy with him in the increased difficulties he has been caused by the inflammatory speeches of some of his own colleagues in the last few days? May I ask two questions. First of all, if the two groups concerned are not willing to go to arbitration, is it not a fact that the Industrial Court has made it clear that in reaching a decision it would have to apply what are the Government's presumed policies and therefore there would have to be a ceiling. That is why there is a disinclination to go to arbitration. If the right hon. Gentleman will say quite clearly that the Government wish the arbitration to be unfettered and that it will not be subject to a ceiling but is a matter for open negotiation he may create a very different situation.
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman once again use his good offices in regard to the hospital supplies mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardue) there has already been an undertaking that hospital supplies to a particular hospital will be guaranteed and that notice of cuts will be given? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his offices in pursuing that matter?

Mr. Carr: On the latter point, we believe that the boards are doing and will do everything that they can to make sure that the hospital services are maintained. But we will impress on them once more the importance which everybody attaches to the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman surprised me a little by the first part of his question, because I thought that he and his party believed in an incomes policy. If one has an incomes policy and sets precise norms and figures, one is constraining arbitrators to the maximum extent. We have very deliberately not set a norm: we have not published a norm. I therefore maintain that arbitrators are less shackled than they have been for the last six years.

Mr. James Callaghan: What does that mean?

Mr. Carr: The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) had a lot to do with his party's statutory policy. I meant precisely what I said. Unlike the time when the right hon. Gentleman's party was in office, arbitrators are not now shackled by precise figures, percentages and criteria. We believe that that is too great a rigidity to impose on industry because it breaks down, as it broke down when his party was in power, and great damage is done. Therefore, we have deliberately not imposed precise criteria and levels, as the right hon. Gentleman's party tried to do when it was in power.
What we have done, what we believe it is our duty to do and what we shall continue to do is to say to the country, to employers and to trade unions that in making and judging and replying to claims the national interest comes somewhere, and the overriding national interest of all of us, but, most of all, of those at the lower end of the income scale, is that the inflationary wage increases which were started off a year ago by the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) should now be damped down.

Mr. Thorpe: With leave, may I clear up one point? Did I hear the Secretary of State say that the Government's view was that an increase of over 10 per cent. was inflationary? If so, does not that constitute a declared norm?

Mr. Carr: I have said—and I do not think I have said anything different tonight—that we have not set any precise, rigid norms. We have made absolutely clear that we believe that public and private employers should take into account the need to reduce the inflationary pressure and the excessive inflationary wage settlements which have been typical of the last 12 months and which until the last few weeks were getting bigger. We have never given a precise figure in this or in any other case.
We have said, and we believe that it is right to say, that, in view of the overall national need and of the productivity, the offer made in this case by the employers seems to be, in the circumstances, as far as we can judge, reasonably fair. But I repeat that, far from preventing the parties from going to arbitration on that point, I have spent

quite a considerable part of the day trying to get the parties to do that.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The Opposition seem to have made as their touchstone for helping to bring this trouble to an end the setting up of a court of inquiry, and my right hon. Friend seemed to indicate, in answering the Leader of the Opposition, that he would look into this. May I remind my right hon. Friend that if he is persuaded to move away from the procedures laid down by setting up a court of inquiry he may well break the procedures which exist in many other industries, and we shall all be blind and stupid if we do not recognise that when this trouble is over other trouble will blow up?
If my right hon. Friend sets a precedent by moving away from the procedures laid down, he may well have to set up innumerable courts of inquiry, which itself could bring this country to a standstill. Before my right hon. Friend is pushed off the correct line of allowing the procedures, freely agreed, to work out and grants a court of inquiry, I urge him to give the matter a great deal of thought.

Mr. Carr: It would be as wrong for me to be rigid about not setting up a court of inquiry as it would for me to be rigid in saying that this was the method which ought to be adopted in the first place. The first task of anyone who occupies my position in this sort of affair is to try to get the parties to settle the matter for themselves by their own agreed procedures. I do not believe that a rigid departure from those procedures—and here I agree very much with my hon. Friend—helps the long-term cause of good industrial relations.

Mr. Alex Eadie: Many of us on this side of the House are not concerned about the debating points and who first suggested the best idea for bringing the dispute to an end. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider very seriously the setting up of a court of inquiry, because he seemed to indicate to the House that he would consider this? Although within the next hour or two a situation may arise where arbitration is devalued in the eyes of the unions, can it be made clear that the House does not devalue the rôle of a court of inquiry?


Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman say why hospitals are in this plight, when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the House at the outset of the dispute that there was a committee or an operations room looking into this matter?

Mr. Carr: On the hospital point, Mr. Speaker, by leave of the House, the Government made standby generators available to hospitals which needed them. Boards undertook—and scarcely needed asking to undertake—to give the maximum notice, particularly to hospitals. I do not want to labour the point, but as I said earlier, the reason for failure in this has been the unpredictable nature of the working to rule. I am convinced that electricity boards have genuinely done their best to give the longest possible notice whenever and wherever they can.
On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I said earlier that I am considering what the unions have said to me. I hope that they are considering what I said to them. I have deliberately made it clear that I rule out no possibilities, while believing that it is important for industries to keep to their own agreements wherever possible, and I am sure that is right. All I ask is that the House should give the sort of consideration which in the past it normally gave to people who have held my position and not create atmospheres and force people in my position to make firm statements about what they are or are not going to do in the middle of a dispute.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have intervened in a Foreign Affairs debate, and ought now to get back to it.

Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and seeing that his mind is not absolutely inflexible and rigid on some of the suggestions put to him, may I ask whether he or another Minister will undertake to make a statement tomorrow after Questions so that in this difficult situation the House may be kept informed? If there are signs tomorrow in that statement that the right hon. Gentleman's re-thinking may lead to some fructifying on the lines he has indicated we shall not want tomorrow to press for a debate. If there are signs of

total inflexibility, then I give notice that we shall press for an immediate debate.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order. In response to what was said by the Leader of the Opposition, I wish to say that I was pressed at 3.30 for a statement to be made, and a statement has been made. I now say to the House, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, that a statement will be made tomorrow. I do not think it would be right to go further than that.

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN AFFAIRS

8.40 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I am grateful for this opportunity to address the House after the statement by the Minister, but I am in some fear and trepidation since it is exactly ten years since I have dared to intervene in a foreign affairs debate. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his extremely explicit speech made quite clear that this is a very open debate, and I know that the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) will not expect me to follow his argument.
Today the really important issues before the country and the world are the relationships that exist between East and West. This point was brought out by the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas). Another new factor entering into the picture is the rôle that China is about to play by virtue of the advanced state of its nuclear plant in Sinkiang. I believe that there are two alternatives—either that the Russians will be genuinely frightened of the developments along their long frontier because of the possession by China of powerful nuclear weapons which could make the Russians more amenable to a rapproachment with the West; or that there could be an agreement between those two powers to divide up the world. It is those factors which eventually must influence the course of history. A third possibility is that the province of Sinkiang, which in fact is not Chinese at all, could be taken by Russia, by force.
Arising out of these factors we must face the fact that any form of disarmament conference cannot be restricted to consideration of nuclear weapons. Both


in Hungary and Czechoslovakia the Russions have shown that they have very large conventional forces at their disposal. Any form of alliance must take that matter into consideration. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must be interested in some form of reduction of tension and arms, but I plead with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to look at this matter in the context of Russian strategic strengths. We have only to look at the extension of Russian naval forces into the Mediterranean and the Far East to realise that Russia is endeavouring to extend its influences throughout the world.
This brings me to an extremely important point. If we are to protect our trade routes, we must perforce have a base somewhere and it so happens—and here I disagree with the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart)—that it is important we should retain a base in South Africa. I will not go into the merits of the régime there; nearly all of us dislike it. I ask the Government to consider only one point in this respect. Is it in the interests of Great Britain, of world peace, and of all those countries east of Suez that we should retain that base? If so, I must ask them to stand firm on their obligations to supply whatever is necessary so that we can fulfil our obligations in that area.
I turn now to the course of events in South-East Asia. As we all know, this is a long-drawn-out struggle in which, thank heaven, we are not involved. But, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Agreement, it is a matter to which we should turn our attention. It may well be—I put this point to the House genuinely—that it could suit Russia to attend a Geneva Conference. We should then take the opportunity if it is afforded, because we have an obligation which we must discharge. But there are difficulties. Three different countries are involved—first, Vietnam; secondly, Cambodia; and, thirdly, Laos.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) mentioned the invasion of Cambodia. This is an extremely important point. I have been to Cambodia within the last three months. When this invasion took place the stores and depôts were largely destroyed. The effect was to drive the North Vietnam troops west

towards the hilly country in the northern part of Cambodia where they still are. They continue to represent a grave danger to the peace of Cambodia. General Lon Non is doing everything that he can.
One interesting point which has come out of this tragic event is that, for the first time, the South Vietnamese and the Cambodians are operating together. The security and defence of that stretch of country, The Parrot's Beak, is being run by the South Vietnamese who are not only helping their neghbours, but at the same time are supplying them with what arms they can spare.
As has been rightly said, the fighting has subsided to a considerable extent in South Vietnam. We all welcome this. But there are reasons for it. The first is that the Americans and the South Vietnamese have got a much better control in South Vietnam. They have made a number of reforms which have encouraged confidence. They have every intention of arming every adult South Vietnamese citizen. As a parallel, Switzerland has the only army in the world where every soldier takes his personal Army weapon home with him.
The South Vietnamese president told me that he was intending to carry out this operation in his country because he had no fear whatsoever from his own people.
The second important reason is that the reinforcements which were coming from North Vietnam to South Vietnam have been diverted and are now going either to Cambodia or to Laos. The effect of this is extremely worrying. What has happened is that in both Cambodia and Laos there is a heavy concentration of North Vietnamese troops—I have seen them myself, both dead and alive—which in my view represents a serious threat to the Governments of those countries. I do not deny that there are not some Communist Khmers in Cambodia, just as there are Pathet Lao, but what is important is that there are North Vietnam Army troops operating in those areas. The position in Vietnam is different, because here the North Vietnamese are fighting the South Vietnamese. The situation in the other two countries has to be regarded very much more as an invasion by the North Vietnamese Army.
The solution to the problem is extremely complicated. What worries me is that at the moment there seems to be a division of opinion in Hanoi as to whether it should deploy all its troops in Cambodia and win a victory and topple the Lon Non Government, or continue to attack the three countries. It is my genuine view that if Hanoi went about it in a strategic and tactical way it would be possible, one by one, to topple those régimes.
I put it seriously to the House that if we get an agreement—which is what we all want—Laos and Cambodia will have to get rid of 50,000 and 100,000 troops respectively, all of whom are in jungle areas. This will put a tremendous responsibility on Her Majesty's Government should the Geneva Conference be reconvened, because we shall have a responsibility to see that peace is carried out, and it will be an extremely difficult operation. I hope that there will be some form of political solution, but I must warn the Government that it could be that at the end of the day the co-Chairman would be blamed for any failure which resulted from an agreement.
I see that the right hon. Member for Stepney is about to leave the Chamber. I think that my right hon. Friend will deal with most of the points made by him, but I should like to put one matter to the right hon. Gentleman personally. If we are looking at security in Europe, if we join the E.E.C. and bring with us our E.F.T.A. partners and our Commonwealth friends, this alliance, which will be of a commercial nature, will lend weight to our own N.A.T.O. forces. I am sure that this combination of commercial interests will have an effect and make our N.A.T.O. Alliance very much stronger in the future.
It has always been my view that if we, as taxpayers, are expected to contribute towards the maintenance of our forces in B.A.O.R. we should not be denied any benefits from joining the E.E.C. I do not see any reason why we should not use that as a bargaining counter. I am sure that in replying to the debate my right hon. Friend will assure us that the transitional periods will be satisfactory. I am equally satisfied that if they are not satisfactory we shall not become part of the E.E.C. Although I

am not as optimistic as the right hon. Member for Fulham about the possibility of some arrangement being reached, I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) in his excellent maiden speech, said about our approaching agreements, with a certain amount of scepticism.
I believe that the solution in the Far East involves our remaining there because this gives confidence to the people of the area. We should do more than go forward with our five-Power arrangements. It is essential that the countries of Indo-China join together in some sort of mutual pact—Laos presents a difficulty because of the special arrangements made in 1963, but this could be overcome—because if countries like Laos, Thailand and Cambodia realise the common dangers, they will accept that it is in their interests to have something stronger than S.E.A.T.O. A pact including America and ourselves could have a great stabilising influence in the area.
It will be difficult to convince them of this. I have had long talks with all the Prime Ministers concerned and I appreciate the difficulties. We are reaching the point, however, when they would like to see some sort of mutual agreement. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the possibility of our extending our treaty obligations to get an agreement to include these countries. I appreciate the difficulties and the need to judge between War and subversion. If we are to secure peace in the Far East, I am sure that it will come only by there being an American and British presence in the area and by there being a proper treaty which guarantees to the people of those countries the security and safety which they rightly deserve.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Mr. Molloy.

Mr. Peter Archer: On a point of order. I am not clear whether the statement which was made a short time ago was an intervention in the debate and thus formed part of the debate or was an intervention which was outwith the debate. Whatever the position, I am not objecting to the statement being made and I accept that it was perfectly proper that it should have been made.
However, this is the first foreign affairs debate that we have had for a long time. Also, only Privy Councillors had caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or that of Mr. Speaker, up to the point at which the statement was made. Might it not be in the interests of the House if the Foreign Secretary were to consult his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House with a view to suspending the Standing Orders to enable the debate to be extended?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's point of order has nothing to do with the Chair. I must inform him—and I am glad of this opportunity to make the position clear—that unfortunately for this debate, the time taken by the statement counts as part of the debate. There can be no addition of time to extend the debate. This is unfortunate, but those are the facts. It means that the hon. Gentleman and probably others who would have expected to be called to speak will not now be called.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Further to that point of order. Is there nothing that can be done to protect the rights of back benchers in this matter? I, too, emphasise that only Privy Councillors have been called to speak from this side of the House. Can you do nothing to protect us, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, but the traditions and customs of the House dictate that the Chair calls Privy Councillors if they rise. I suggest that he has a talk with his Privy Councillors.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: I sympathise with the point of order which has been raised. I only wish that my hon. Friends had raised it when a Privy Councillor had been called to speak. I, of course, am not one of them.
In the short time available to me I shall make a few remarks about South Africa and briefly refer to what I feel is the most remarkable thing that we have seen recently in European affairs. I refer to the initiative that has been shown by Chancellor Willy Brandt, which to some extent at least has been applauded by some hon. Members.
There was an omission from those speeches from both sides of the House

which expressed grave apprehension about the policy of selling arms to South Africa. Men of experience from both sides of the House voiced their apprehensions as to what that might cost this country in the perhaps not-too-distant future, both politically and economically. I should like to rectify the omission by congratulating the Archbishop of Canterbury on the manner in which he has tried to make a sensible contribution to the problem by going to South Africa, meeting people and listening to their points of view, but never for one moment giving in to any pressures. Both Front Benches of the House could learn a great deal from what he has said on this subject.
A number of hon. Members over the past six years have been pleading for a European security council. I and one or two of my hon. Friends have pressed for it for many years. Initially we were not given much encouragement, but I am glad that in the last year of the previous Government there was a definite move to see whether this was a feasible, possible and practical move.
I was glad to hear the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), who has not only made excellent speeches in the House on this matter but was listened to avidly and congratulated warmly in the Council of Europe and in the Western European Union when he spoke on this theme.
Sometimes we forget that in discussions on foreign affairs we cannot, as did the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), make comparisons with what was happening 50, 60 and 70 years ago. That is an appallingly myopic and not a particularly bright attitude. A new element has arisen in foreign affairs in the past 20 years and that is the hydrogen bomb and the cobalt bomb. We have to consider nuclear weapons today.
When we hear people outside the House, and one or two hon. Members in the House, criticising our students, and making banal criticisms because some of the young men today wear their hair like the founder of the Christian religion or like the knights of the Middle Ages, we should concentrate on the fact that young folk throughout the world are living in the most terrifying age mankind has ever passed through. That is what we have left them. When they perhaps get


annoyed because, from childhood, through adolescence and into their early twenties they have lived in the constant shade of threat and terror of a nuclear explosion, with its penumbra of annihilation hanging over everybody, perhaps we should give them some consideration. We should realise that we have some responsibility in this matter when they make protests about the sort of world we have created for them.
With the idea of a European peace and security council we can make a contribution to establishing peace not merely in Europe but throughout the world. It is fair to say that if there had been the equivalent of a Korea or Vietnam in Europe, nuclear weapons would have been used before very long.
When we talk about freedom, democracy and honour, as the hon. Member for Stretford did, we have to realise that, if the final holocaust ever comes, freedom, democracy and honour will cease to have any meaning. The terms imply a design for society and a social code. If society is destroyed, nothing honourable, free or democratic will remain. That is the serious issue which arises in any discussion of foreign affairs in this House.
Over the past six years, there have been various propositions. There was the Bucharest Declaration, supported by the Danes and Norwegians. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham was Foreign Secretary he, too, gave his support and encouragement to the idea. We now have the supreme example set us by the German Chancellor, Herr Willy Brandt, and his negotiations with the Poles and Russians.
If we want to see Europe make its contribution to peace in our continent and throughout the world, we must applaud those endeavours and not try to find faults in what may follow from them. Before the proposed treaties can be ratified, the Russians will have to give way on one or two issues. I hope, for example, that we shall never again see the implementation of the loathsome Brezhnev policy and what happened to Czechoslovakia.
All these considerations must be borne in mind, and we must never lower our guard. But merely to take a negative attitude is to remain in a paralysed and dangerous situation. The German Chancellor has taught us a lesson in practical

politics. I hope that this country will applaud his ideas and that, before long, we shall see established a European peace and security council. When it is set up, we must see to it that it is not involved merely in achieving and maintaining peace but moves along economic and social lines.
Through this sort of intercourse between the countries of Europe, the ball will be placed in the court of the ordinary people. I have massive confidence in ordinary people. If they are given the opportunity to meet one another and discuss matters, I believe that a real contribution will be made to the realisation of a lasting peace throughout the world.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: My first task, even in their absence, is to offer the congratulations of this side of the House to the hon. Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Loveridge) and Stretford (Mr. Churchill), who made their maiden speeches today. The hon. Member for Hornchurch made a confident and lucid speech, and I have no doubt that we shall hear him with pleasure on very many occasions in the future. For the time being, he will be remembered as one of the few new Members who managed to include a passage from the Lord's Prayer in their maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Stretford clearly faced an ordeal. At the best of times, a maiden speech is an awe-inspiring occasion. The hon. Gentleman, following very many illustrious ancestors, must have found it a very difficult task. There is no doubt that he came through with flying colours, and we look forward to hearing him in many future debates.
At the beginning of the debate, the Foreign Secretary said that debates of this sort are very often disorganised, unsatisfactory and diffuse. That is a sentiment which I suspect is more readily accepted at the beginning of a debate than at the end of it. I must add to its diffuse nature, and I do so by asking the Minister of State two specific questions. From long experience, I know that it is kinder to have questions asked at the beginning of the penultimate speech than at 9.30 p.m.
My first question is concerned with Anguilla, to which my right hon. Friend referred earlier in the debate. Can the


Minister of State tell us when we will hear whether the Government are accepting the recommendations of the Wooding Report? Indeed, can he tell us whether the Government have accepted those recommendations? Perhaps we may also be told whether the Wooding Report's recommendations are to be discussed by the Government with the Governments of other Commonwealth Caribbean nations.
The second specific question that I ask him concerns the cost of our contribution to N.A.T.O. We all know that, at last week's meeting, there were suggestions that all N.A.T.O. members might and should make increased contributions in terms of budgetary subventions The British Government thought it best, or thought it wise, or thought it necessary, to make their contribution in the form of the designation of extra forces, rather than the actual payment of money. However, it is widely believed—it is certainly believed in Germany, from which I returned only this morning—that our partners in N.A.T.O. were at least given hope that there might be other funds available in terms of increased N.A.T.O. contributions
If the Minister of State is to tell us that such a hope has been held out, then for obvious reasons I shall press him no further On the other hand, if he is to tell us that there is not to be an increased contribution, I should be grateful if he would tell us why this decision has been made. Does the Government, for instance, disagree with the N.A.T.O. judgment that the extra funds for infrastructure and other things are not necessary?
Clearly, whatever the reasons which have prompted the Government, they do not include a ceiling on defence expenditure. As we know very well, the Government do not believe in ceilings on defence expenditure.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the most effective and perhaps least expensive contribution that we could make would be an increase in our reserve capability which is so singularly deficient at present? If one consider the percentage of reserves to regular Armed Forces, one sees that it is lower in Britain than in any other Western country.

Mr. Hattersley: I was asking the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend a question and I allowed him to make a supplementary point. His question should be addressed not to me but to the Government. However, since he has addressed it to me, I will tell him frankly the answer. It is that reserves of the sort which my Government organised, volunteers who could be slotted into the regular Army, might make a positive contribution to our N.A.T.O. commitments; territorials of the sort that his Government are about to expand are a nonsense in terms of European defence.
I turn from the two specific questions to other points raised in the debate. I will try at once to deal with the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), who dealt in some detail with the Werner Report. He treated it as though he had discovered, as a result of that report, for the first time, that there are political implications in the Treaty of Rome.
Of course, membership of the European Economic Community, by its very nature, is bound to involve great Britain in some sort of political union. The Common Market is not a zollverein, it is as it says, an economic community. For it to be a community, there have to be, for instance, some common commercial standards. There have to be, for instance, some common laws on monopoly. There have to be, for instance, some parallel social benefits. Therefore, all of us—those who have had a longstanding enthusiasm for British membership and those who have been more skeptical—have always recognised that there is an element of political commitment in our signing the Treaty.
My right hon. Friend is entitled to ask the Government their view about this specific item of political commitment and whether we genuinely believe that the second and third stage of that report will not be implemented until a time when, if we are ever to be members of the Community, we will be able to influence it. But it is wrong to imply or suggest that the idea of the political union is something new or strange or something which enthusiasts for membership prefer not to talk about. Indeed, it is one of the concrete benefits of membership


which we shall enjoy if entry can be secured on the right terms.
I move now to rather more general questions concerning Europe and specifically to the prospects of a European security conference. I want at once to make one point very clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). He suggested, or at least implied, that the demand of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and the Foreign Secretary for a solution—a permanent solution—to the Berlin problem before some substantial movement towards a security conference, could be interpreted as just an excuse for delaying convening such a conference.
The N.A.T.O. partners have been saying far four years that progress on Berlin is an absolute prerequisite to progress in other fields. This was certainly included in the Brussels declaration of a year ago. Their motives then, and our motives now, for saying that a solution to the Berlin situation ought to be the principal obligation and the principal priority on a European agenda are very clear and I believe, very right.
The first is a matter of principle and the obligations that we have as partners with the free people of Berlin. The second is practical—the belief that the best way both of obtaining a settlement of the Berlin problem and of achieving a successful European security conference is to say that the Berlin item must be dealt with before the security conference can proceed.
Willingness to underwrite Berlin's status is an indication of the Soviet Union's genuine enthusiasm for détente, but I think that it is more than that. Nobody should pretend that the sort of solution that the House wants to see to the Berlin problem can be anything other than an embarrassment to East Germany. The fact that we all have the strongest reservations about the regime in East Germany should not blind us to some of the realities of its political position. When it is said that Berlin provides what the regime rather euphemistically describes as an "ideological diversion" in East Germany, it is making a statement of reality—the reality, for instance, that very many East Germans would choose, given the opportunity, to move into Berlin in preference to living in East Germany.
A permanently acceptable solution to the Berlin problem is one which is bound to cause the East Germans some embarrassment. To overcome that embarrassment they need some persuasion by the Soviet Union. Indeed, it may well be that they have already received some persuasion from the Soviet Union. But continual persuasion is necessary. As I believe that the Soviet Union has a strong vested interest in a successful European security conference, I think that it is wise and prudent for us to say that that item must appear on the European agenda only when Berlin's status has been clarified and confirmed permanently.
It is worth reminding ourselves again what that clarification means. It means the acceptance of West Berlin as an integral part of the Federal Republic. It means constant free access from the Federal Republic of Berlin. It also means freer communications between the two halves of the city. It also means ending the vestiges of economic discrimination from Warsaw Pact countries to the city of Berlin. Perhaps most important of all, it means that those four principles must be under-written by the Soviet Union, which must do its best to ensure that they are applied—consciously applied, and genuinely applied.
The East German News Agency gave the West some advice last year about its attitude to Berlin. It said that "the West must not only purse its lips but must begin to whistle". That is advice that the East now needs to take itself. We need some genuine steps. We need some practical steps. We need more than the indication of enthusiasm. We need a demonstration along the lines that I have suggested to the House.
Inevitably the debate has dealt in part with the situation in South-East Asia and the American commitment to Cambodia and Vietnam. I join the Foreign Secretary in re-emphasising the essential, fundamental rôle that Britain can and may well play in bringing that unhappy state of affairs to a conclusion. I welcome the news that the Foreign Secretary told the Russian Foreign Minister that we were available to join in the reconvening of the conference. Like him, and like all reasonable people, I look to Indo-China for signs of hope, and I believe that I see some, not least in President Nixon's statement of 7th October. It


contained rather fewer proposals than his first and perhaps principal statement on Indo-China, made on 14th May, 1969. But the more recent statement included a major addition—the offer of an agreed timetable for the withdrawal of all external forces as a part of the overall Indo-Chinese settlement.
Before the statement was made Hanoi had always said that it regarded the offer of an agreed timetable as a crucial contribution towards a solution. I have no doubt that President Nixon included that proposal in the knowledge that it was so regarded in Hanoi. I hope that it may be so regarded in the future. I have no doubt of President Nixon's personal commitment to disengagement in Indo-China. Of course, that means honourable and orderly disengagement, with the assumption of greater responsibilities by the South Vietnamese. But I have no doubt of his determination to see his troop withdrawal programme through, reinforced by the knowledge that it is going ahead of schedule.
I go even further. I think that even if President Nixon were not personally committed to it the national mood in the United States would make it very difficult for him to divert in any major way from his announced programme. The defeat in the Senate by only 55 votes to 39 of the most extraordinary proposal that it should place a limit on the funds available to maintain forces in Vietnam is an indication of the national mood. I believe that the circumstances of the time would force disengagement on President Nixon even if he were not to choose it. However, I believe that he does choose it, and that he gave a sign with the statement of October 7th.
What we need now is a new sign from North Vietnam, a sign that the cynics who said that the peace conference in Paris could not go ahead whilst the North Vietnamese felt that they could get a more acceptable solution by playing for time were wrong. I share the Foreign Secretary's view that no sign could be more appropriate than an improvement in the appalling conditions under which American prisoners are being held. Last week Ambassador Bruce, whom we all regard as the most rational and temperate of men, listed 13 Articles of the Geneva Convention which were being contra-

vened. Nothing could say more for the genuine intentions of the North Vietnamese than to make the conditions under which the American prisoners are held a great deal more tolerable.
I now say a final word on Vietnam and the bombing there. In my last speech as a private Member in 1966, made from the back benches opposite, I attempted to justify President Johnson's decision to bomb strategic targets in North Vietnam. I did that because his decision was taken in support of his ground forces, who were then carrying out a task which I regarded as tragic but necessary. Having resumed the status of private Member, I say, with apologies, that I still believe that what I said then was right. But that was about bombing in 1966. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said this afternoon, more recent bombings have not had the clear-cut objectives of that action 4½ years ago. Their military objective has been at least obscure, and I share with my right hon. Friend regret that they took place.
I finally turn to the Middle East. The Foreign Secretary said at the beginning of his speech that no one can be optimistic about the situation there, and it is difficult to disagree with that judgment. But I am sure he will agree with me that lack of optimism is not an argument for abandonment of an endeavour. At the time of the last initiative, this piece of advice appeared in the Washington Post:
it is not necessary to hope in order to act, nor succeed in order to persevere.
The origins of that aphorism are obscure. Some people attribute it to William the Silent; others, surprisingly, to Mr. Dean Acheson. Despite the fact that it may come from such diverse origins, we will all agree that there is no doubt about its applicability to the Middle East situation.
Nor can it be said that the prospects in the Middle East improve with the passage of time. Attitudes, hard enough already—indeed, hard enough for many hundreds of years—continue to harden and pressures develop on both sides which make a solution increasingly difficult. I give only two examples. In the Arab States, for instance, there is growing pressure from extremists guerrilla organisations which makes the statesmanlike decisions which some Arab Governments are already prepared to take, and


eventually which they all must take, much more difficult for Governments to take and survive. On the other hand, in Israel there becomes an increasing commitment, both in terms of psychology and of institution, to the territories acquired in 1967. The more time passes, the more difficult a solution becomes. None of us clearly knows what the solution is, but all of us, I think, know what the solution's basis must be—and that is United Nations Resolution No. 242 of 22nd November, 1967.
About that resolution's value I think there can be no doubt. Nor can there be any doubt as to the unanimity of both sides of this House both about the value of the resolution and its interpretation. Any student of HANSARD who reads column 1033 of 13th April last will be struck by the resemblance between the paragraph recorded there and paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the present Foreign Secretary's speech in Harrogate six or seven months later. The passages about the resolution are virtually identical: the passages on what is meant in terms of boundaries before 5th June, 1967, are virtually identical; the passages on how those boundaries are best defined are virtually identical. Indeed, the present Foreign Secretary went on to talk about the need to provide Israel with security by guarantee as great as that which she now enjoys as a result of her conquests in exactly the same terms as the point made by his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) on 13th April.
I believe that both my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman are not only identical but—I say this with humility—are also right. I believe that they are right in terms of guaranteeing Israel's security in terms certainly as substantial as the security she now enjoys. That is why I have never been able to understand those inside and outside the House, who criticised the four-Power initiatives in the Middle East as they went on in parallel to Dr. Jarring's patient attempt to find some solution through Resolution No. 242. It is the great Powers which must underwrite and become firmly committed to the security by guarantee which is the only solution in the Middle East situation. It is absolutely essential that their constant co-operation and con-

stant commitment are obtained in this way.
That, perhaps, is looking too far to the future. At the moment, there must be, and I believe there will continue to be, patient work in terms of interpreting and applying the principles of Resolution No. 242. I do not believe that that work can be done too quickly or with too great an urgency. I understand that Dr. Jarring is to report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations by 5th January. Equally, as I understand it, the present cease-fire lapses a month after that date.
All of us must hope that some progress is made before then, perhaps not progress in substantive matters, and perhaps not even crucial progress on these procedural matters which are themselves fundamental—questions like whether the parties will negotiate direct, or whether Dr. Jarring will somehow collect opinions and count heads without ever bringing the parties face to face across the conference table. Perhaps these fundamental crucial questions (both substantive and procedural) will have to be agreed to enable any real progress to be made. But over the few weeks between now and the ending of the cease fire we all hope that there are signs that the cease-fire will be renewed by the Arab countries, not in the fear that by its constant renewal a new status quo will develop, but renewed by the Arab Governments in the hope that the attempts now being made offer them a genuine solution for reclaiming and having returned to them the lands governed by Resolution 242, and yet living in peace with an established and guaranteed State of Israel.
In many ways this has been a sombre debate, but in many others it has been optimistic. The House has welcomed the initiatives of the Chancellor of the Federal German Republic and it is appropriate that in this final speech from the Opposition benches I should again welcome those initiatives. These are the great hopes for East-West relations, the great hope for the peace of the world. Having seen the steps which he has so successfully taken to solve problems which once we all believced to be permanently beyond solution, we have all been given hope for solutions in other parts of the world to problems which now seem as impossible as those which Willy


Brandt has succeeded in solving over the last six months.

9.32 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): It is always difficult to draw together the threads of a foreign affairs debate which has ranged widely. Today's is no exception and the fact that we started in candlelight and had a break at eight o'clock for an important statement has not made it less unusual than some other debates. However, I should like to deal with a number of issues which have been raised during this somewhat truncated debate.
I should like first to echo the opening words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in offering my congratulations to the two maiden speakers today. We all listened with interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Loveridge). It was delivered in a way which commended him to the House. We had all looked forward to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill). I say this without wishing to make an invidious comparison, but, by reason of my hon. Friend's name, this speech was looked forward to with especial anticipation in all quarters of the House. We all greatly welcome the opportunity to hear this newest member of the Churchill clan come among us, and we all wish him every possible success. I only wish that his illustrious grandfather had been sitting in his corner seat as my hon. Friend made that speech, for I can imagine the approving nod, and the approving grunt which would have gone with it, at the end of the speech.
I do not propose to dwell at length on the Common Market, simply because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be making a statement tomorrow, and there will be an opportunity to question him then. However, I should like briefly to take up one point made by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), who devoted most of his speech to the Common Market. He talked first about the common agricultural policy and went on to discuss Community finance.
It was my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—and the right hon. Gentleman was referring to his

Speech—who told his Community colleagues at Luxembourg at the opening negotiations on 30th June that our predecessors had looked forward to Britain's taking part as a full member in the negotiations on financial arrangements for the period after the end of 1969. He pointed out that we were not, however, a party to that agreement and the question of our contribution to Community finance was therefore an absolutely central issue in the present negotiations.
The point I want to make is that the Government did not, as I think the right hon. Gentleman implied, "sell the pass" on this issue. We have made it absolutely clear that unless a fair and sound solution is found, no British Government could contemplate joining. As to the Common Market, it would be better to leave that to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who will be answering questions tomorrow on the latest developments.
We have had several interesting contributions on Vietnam and I listened with interest to the speeches made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and the hon. Member for Spark-brook. While I would not wish to disagree with anything in particular they had to say on the broad lines of policy, I would not go along with them in their condemnation of the latest bombings. Without knowing more about the military factors it would be wrong to do so.
All I would say is that there was strong criticism by some hon. Members in this House and elsewhere at the time of the Cambodian operation, but there seems little doubt that this has helped enormously to bring down the degree of casualties in Vietnam, and I would have thought that these matters have to be judged in relation to the military situation. More valuable was the reference to President Nixon's new negotiating offer. The governments of South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia all endorse the proposals. In America both hawks and doves seem to have been united in accepting this as fair and reasonable.
We for our part believed and said that these proposals could form a good basis for a settlement within which the people of South Vietnam could decide their own future free from outside interference. I hope that the Communists, despite their initial rejection of the offer, will think


again and talk seriously on the basis of President Nixon's proposals. My right hon. Friend referred to his recent offer to Mr. Gromyko to join in reactivating the Geneva Conference. I emphasise that offer still stands and that nothing would please the Government more than if the Soviet Government were to accept that suggestion.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East referred specifically to the question of China and the United Nations. I was glad that he did because I was the first British representative at the United Nations to vote for China's admission, back in 1961 or 1962. Since then representatives of this country have consistently voted for China's admission. This year, for the first time, there was a simple majority for it. I freely acknowledge that this gives a fresh importance to the second vote. This is a matter on which we shall be having close consultations in the coming months. Our object is to see China occupying the Chinese seat in the United Nations.
That has been the view of both sides of the House for many years and I hope that it can be achieved. The position of Formosa or Taiwan has to be resolved, and I should be sorry to see them denied a seat. If they chose to deny themselves a seat because of their feelings that is another matter, but it should be for the United Nations to make the opportunity, not for two Chinas but for China to be there and for there to be a representative of Taiwan or Formosa in some form or another if they so wish. That is the way in which I should like to see it resolved. How it will eventually turn out will depend on the view of many other people including, of course, Chiang Kai-shek.
Turning to the question of N.A.T.O., which has occupied a lot of time in the debate, the series of meetings held in Brussels by the defence and foreign Ministers of N.A.T.O. in the first week of December were very useful indeed. The nature of the problems discussed made this an occasion for taking stock rather than for making new moves. The Ministers had an important report to consider on the defensive problems confronting the Alliance in the coming decade. They reached agreement on the first steps towards removing some of the weaknesses

revealed, and the European members agreed to increase their contributions to the common effort. Details of our own decisions to increase the forces we provide for N.A.T.O. were announced in the Defence White Paper. The special European defence improvement programme as the co-operative endeavour by the European members of N.A.T.O. is known will be a continuing process. Different countries will make different contributions, but all will play their part.
The hon. Member for Sparkbrook asked a particular question on this matter. The cost of our extra contribution to N.A.T.O. has been assessed at £45 million over the next five years, but at £140 million over 10 years. This takes account of the Jaguar squadrons coming into force in the latter part of the period.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether further consideration had been given to the budgetary contribution. I understand that the German representative put forward certain proposals which will be looked at, but no decision on them has been made. The important thing to remember is that we are contributing a larger proportion of our gross national product to N.A.T.O. than is any other European member, and, with the additional contribution which we have announced, we are well fulfilling our side of the bargain. I hope that our European colleagues will agree with that.

Mr. Healey: Will the Minister answer the question which I raised earlier, namely, what is the net value of our contribution over the next five years, given the loss to N.A.T.O. of the Nimrods stationed in the Far East, the five frigates stationed in the Far East and the additional battalions?

Mr. Godber: I have no figure for that. If the right hon. Gentleman puts down a Question, we shall try to give the figure, but it will not be easy. I have given the additional contribution which we have proposed.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East referred at some length to the question of N.A.T.O. defence and the allied matter of balanced mutual force reductions. This is a very important subject, but, as the right hon. Gentleman recognises, it has very great difficulties. For the present, Berlin is, in our view, the


key, as was recognised by the N.A.T.O. Foreign Ministers when they met in Rome during the period in office of the previous Government. The same attitude was shown at the Brussels meeting attended by my right hon. Friend last week. Once there has been a satisfactory conclusion to the Berlin talks, and progress made on other relevant matters, the allies will be ready to move forward to wider discussion with the countries of Eastern Europe.
I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Leeds, East say so firmly that that was prerequisite. We agree. This will show whether there is hope of moving forward in the way in which we and others would like to move, but without some evidence of this kind I hesitate to say what progress could be made in talks on this theme. The question of making progress in regard to Berlin is the essence of all the hopes which have been voiced in the Chamber today.
A conference is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end. On more than one occasion in the past the Russians have pressed for the setting up of conferences which have stimulated a great deal of hope, but the hope has not been justified. I remember from my experience the excitement aroused when there was talk of complete and general disarmament and the setting up of the 18-Power Conference in Geneva. We went wearily on month after month. That conference still exists and continues. It has achieved something; it would be silly to say otherwise. [Interruption.] It has indeed achieved a great deal. I was involved in the first significant development of it—the partial test ban treaty. But it has not achieved what was hoped of it. Such matters as a European security conference were discussed in the earlier stages of that conference. The question of balanced force reductions was an important issue during the early stages.
By all means let us have a conference if there is the prospect of progress. But It us be realistic. In that context, I should like to make a few comments about the position concerning Germany and Berlin. The important initiative taken by Herr Willy Brandt, which has been welcomed on both sides of the House, has led to the negotiation of the Soviet-Ger

man Treaty and the Polish-German Treaty which has in the last few days been initialled. These Treaties carry forward the relations between West Germany and the Eastern nations in a way which would not have seemed possible two years ago. We welcome this, but we recognise the limitations and the problems. Even if Willy Brandt and his colleagues are moving forward and the Soviet Union want to come some way to meet them, we must recognise that the Soviet Union has its own problem with the G.D.R. and Herr Ulbricht. We should like to see the G.D.R. moving in the same way, but we cannot avoid noting the difficulties that appear to have been placed in the way of developments and the problems in relation to Berlin. There has been difficulty which has, perhaps, been stimulated by the very success of Willy Brandt's policies.
It is impossible to forecast for how long the Berlin talks will continue. The ratification of the Treaties is a matter for the Federal Government, and they have said that ratification will not take place until progress is made on Berlin. This is where the matter rests, but we would do right to congratulate Herr Brandt on the significant and far-reaching initiative which he has taken.
The hon. Member for Sparkbrook spent a little time discussing the Arab-Israel question. I agree with what has been said about the great difficulty of making progress. All parties directly concerned stand to gain enormously if a solution can be achieved but the fears and doubts of both sides are so great that we continually get bogged down. We all agree that Resolution 242 is the key and that the reactivation of the Jarring talks is the most important thing that could take place. The difficulty is that Resolution 242 means different things to different people, and this is why the Jarring talks are so important.
Our views on the content of the settlement have been set out fairly recently by my right hon. Friend and I will not repeat them. A key factor is the question of the guarantees. Perhaps the best guarantee of a settlement would be that a settlement was concluded. The parties would then have an interest in maintaining it. But that in itself is not enough. One possible contribution, the stationing of forces


under United Nations auspices along such frontiers as may have been agreed, has been suggested today. We know of the doubts of the Israeli people about this, after what happened last time, and to ensure against the premature withdrawal of such forces it could be agreed that they should be removed only on an affirmative resolution of the Security Council, which could be vetoed by any one of the four permanent members. When I was in Israel a few weeks ago I talked on these lines to some of the Israeli leaders. Whilst they were not immensely enamoured of the idea of a United Nations presence in this regard, they acknowledged that if it were done in this way it would have some merit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) in his helpful speech referred to the possibility of a European guarantee. I would support that if it is what the parties wish. However, it is difficult to find precisely what they do wish. But if we had any indication that this would help, Her Majesty's Government would be active in promoting a development of this kind.

Mr. Peter Archer: rose—

Mr. Godber: I am sorry, I am short of time, and I should like to give way, but I have a number of issues which were raised and with which I should like to deal.
The situation in the Gulf was another matter which was mentioned in a number of speeches, particularly in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford, to which I have already referred. It will be recalled that we entered into a commitment to consult the leaders in the area and other Governments concerned before coming to any conclusions about our policy. Shortly after taking office, my right hon. Friend appointed Sir William Luce as special representative to carry out these consultations. Sir William has had extensive discussions and we are now considering what our policy should be in the light of these consultations and of developments in the area.
The broad aims of our policy have been repeated in this House many times. We shall continue to make a contribution to the stability of the area in a manner which would be appropriate in the conditions of today. It is our firm desire to help to promote the union of the

protected States consistent with the wishes of the Rulers, the peoples and their neighbours and to do what we can in settling any outstanding issues which are in dispute. Sir William has also been charged with the supervision of these aspects of policy, and he will do all he can to encourage the rulers to make progress, particularly over the constitution of the union, so that practical progress can be made. It is disappointing that the meeting of the Deputy Rulers so far has led to no firm result, but there is recognition that the smaller States must combine together if they are to have an effective future. This is what we are most anxious to achieve, and I hope we shall be successful.

Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman's statement about aims was very much a statement of virtues with which hardly anybody could disagree, but some Members on this side of the House would add another principle. Some of us have reservations about the stationing of British troops in this area on territory which has already expressed disapproval of the presence of British troops there. Do Her Majesty's Government affirm that principle?

Mr. Godber: We would not propose to keep troops where they are not wanted, but we would want to have troops where our friends want us to keep them there. This is a matter to which we attach considerable importance.
These are some of the issues with which we have been concerned during the debate. There is one other subject upon which I should like briefly to touch, which is a matter in which I have been concerned recently, and that is the difficult problem of Anguilla. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East said something to indicate that perhaps I had been over-sure in this matter. I can assure him that I have always recognised the great difficulties in this matter. The last thing I want to do is to score party debating points, though I admit that, had I wished to do so, there is ample opportunity. My interest is to get a satisfactory solution to a problem which should never have arisen.
We have been looking at the conclusions of the Wooding Report, and we invited the Prime Minister of St. Kitts to come here for discussions. I myself had


previously been to Anguilla and St. Kitts and had talks there. Mr. Bradshaw has been here. I regret to say that we have been unable to make the progress that I should have liked to see made during these talks. We have not as yet reached a satisfactory solution. I told Mr. Bradshaw and his colleagues that the proposals would remain on the table and I invited them to consider these proposals to see whether they could form the basis for a satisfactory conclusion.
I was sorry this morning to see some rather extravagant headlines in the Press which do not represent the true situation. There are times when violent things are said. But it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to see that no bloodshed takes place; nor do I believe that it is likely to take place while Britain takes an active part. I believe that the wish on both sides of the House is that we should find a means to a satisfactory solution.
We really need time for tempers and feelings to cool. Personal antagonisms between the leadership of both islands do underly many of the troubles. The proposals which I put forward were designed to find more time to enable those concerned to look at the issues. We do not want to create unnecessary fragmentation in the area. We stand by the undertaking first given by the previous Government, and repeated by us, that we will not force on the people of Anguilla a régime which they do not want. I believe that the people of this country will stand by that undertaking. We have to try to find a solution which is acceptable to the Anguillans, because of that undertaking, and which will be tolerable and reasonable to the people of St. Kitts as well. This is what I have been seeking to put forward.
I was asked whether we accepted the Wooding Report. We have consulted those concerned. We sent a senior official to explain the points in that Report to the people of Anguilla, but they rejected it. It is therefore difficult to use it as a basis for negotiation. We are, nevertheless, grateful to Sir Hugh Wooding and his colleagues for the immense trouble to which they went in preparing the Report.

We believe that there are elements in the Report on which we might be able to build. That is what we have been trying to do.
We have drawn the attention of the Commonwealth Caribbean Governments to the Report and we shall be glad of any assistance that they may be able to give us. But it is our responsibility to find a solution, and that is our intention. It is a question of finding adequate time for people to look at the issues involved and to enable tempers to cool. Britain will seek to find a solution. We may not have succeeded initially in reaching a solution, but we are faced with problems arising from the 1967 legislation which has limited our freedom of movement. This is one problem. However, I am confident that, given time, and if we can get good will on both sides, we shall be able to bring the issue to a satisfactory conclusion.
Having covered a wide variety of topics, I come back to the essence and centre of the debate, which is the question of East-West relations and achieving a détente. My analysis of the debate, with all the difficulties which have interposed themselves, is that there is a genuine community of feeling in this House about the need to move forward to détente, but there is also a demand from the House—I put it as high as a demand—that if we are to move forward, the Russians and their colleagues have to show the seriousness of their desire to do so by helping us over the Berlin crisis. I believe that the message which should go out tonight is that if the Russians seriously want to make progress—I have indicated that we recognise that they have problems—they have the opportunity of finding a way to meet us in relation to this problem. If they do so, then I think that the initiative taken by Herr Brandt will bring a fruitful result, and the debate today may have played some part in it if we send out this united message from the House tonight.

Mr. Hector Monro (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Misuse of Drugs Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Monro.]

Orders of the Day — MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: I have published, as is my wont, a list of the Amendments that I have selected. Perhaps I might mention one slight correction to the list. Amendment No. 20 will be taken separately.

New Clause 1

SPOT CHECKS ON SCHOOL PUPILS FOR EVIDENCE OF DRUG-TAKING

(1) A local authority may, with the consent of the medical officer of health of the county or county borough concerned, authorise medical inspection of pupils in attendance at any school maintained by them.

(2) Medical inspections conducted under subsection (1) of this section shall be directed solely to detecting evidence that the pupils inspected have been or are taking any of the drugs to which this Act applies.—[Mr. Dalyell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.01 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that with this new Clause we are to take new Clause 4—Extension of powers of school medical officers.

Mr. Dalyell: The House has shown me a great deal of indulgence today as, by a coincidence of timing, I moved a Ten Minute Rule Bill on this subject this afternoon. It would be wrong to take up and repeat all that was said this afternoon, but perhaps I can explain to the House why the Clause in the form in which it appears is rather different from the wording of the Bill, in that it subtracts from it the phrase
without the consent of the parent or guardian.
When this was first conceived, drawing on my own experience as a teacher and

former director of studies on the B.I. school-ship "Dunera", having worked with people of this age and, indeed, having consulted the teachers' organisations, one envisaged a classroom situation in which, out of a class of, say, 40, 38 pupils would have to undergo the test, and for some reason two would not. I thought—and, indeed, still think—that that would give rise to some problems which could not lightly be shuffled over.
On the other hand, having spoken to the B.M.A., because of the advice that I have received, particularly from Arnold Beckett, Professor of Pharmacy at the Chelsea College of Techonolgy in the University of London, and as a result of discussions with my right, hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short), the former Minister of Education, with many other hon. Members, and with the Leader of the House, who has been most helpful, and to whom I pay tribute for the help that he has given me, as I do to the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) for his assistance, I know that all these people are emphatic that this kind of measure does not have a chance of getting through the House of Commons, and indeed is not intrinsically right, and that anyone who tries to get this measure through, or even to come to some agreement with the Home Office, which may be the way out of this, would be wise to withdraw such a contentious phrase.
In my dealings with the D.E.S. there has undoubtedly been worry about the parent-teacher relationship, but this is a matter for further discussion in the House of Commons as precisely to whom information about positive testing is given. I personally, rather favour the advice which I have been given by the Maudsley Hospital that the parent must know, that the G.P. must know, and that the school medical authorities must know. It is an open matter whether the headmaster should be told names, and certainly I, in a previous incarnation as a classroom teacher in a comprehensive school, would not have wanted to know the names of any of my pupils who were taking drugs. I should rather not have known them, though I should have wished to know the percentage in the school, to be alert to the problems that arise.
I think that there is some onus on those who suggest this kind of measure to express the seriousness of the problem, and here I take a short way out by referring to a number of articles which have appeared in the Press. A formidable series appeared in the Aberdeen Evening Express and in the Daily Mail of 5th November. I mention the Aberdeen paper, not because it has anything to do with my constituency, but simply to express the view that for the Scots this is a rather alarming circumstance. For some years we have believed that drugs were a problem limited to London and the West Midlands. We were somewhat complacent, and believed that we were free from this problem.
But alas that is not so, and in the summer information became available to many of us which seemed to show that we were dealing with what was the tip of the iceberg, and if it can happen in Stonehaven and Aberdeen, it can happen anywhere in these islands. It is perhaps the spread of the problem amongst schools which leads me to offer to the House this form of new Clause.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): I wish that I were able to follow up the success which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) had this afternoon by recommending the House to accept his new Clause. I am afraid, however, that I cannot do so.
I recognise the sincerity with which he has put this proposal forward and the large amount of work he has put in to the drafting of the new Clause. Nevertheless, for the reasons which were advanced cogently by the hon Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) this afternoon, exactly the same principles apply.
The new Clause suggests that there should be a form of random testing for children at school. I believe that there are serious objections even to this, though, like the hon. Member for West Lothian, I recognise the problem and the dangers there are in the spread of drugs to schools. After all, once one accepts the principle of random testing, even recognising the dangers that there may be to children at school, it is difficult to know where to

draw the line after that. One could say that there is a problem in the universities. So there is. Are we suggesting that there should be a form of random testing for people at university?
Again, one must recognise the strong objections there would be from, say, the sixth formers—the 17 and 18-year olds—to a form of random testing which was not applied to those who had not remained on at school. There would probably be serious objection from parents as well to a form of random testing of this kind.
The hon. Gentleman rightly wondered what would be done with the information once one had it. This is a real problem. What would one do with it? Should it be passed on to parents, to teachers, to head teachers only, or to the police? Let us be clear about this: very soon there would be a demand for this information to be passed on to the authorities as well.
We spent a long time in Standing Committee, as the hon. Member for West Derby, pointed out, discussing the whole question of search, arrest and random tests. On both sides there was a strong feeling that whatever tests might be imposed in connection with the serious drug problem, there should not be random tests of any kind.
Having considered carefully the forceful arguments which the hon. Gentleman has put forward, both this afternoon and, with commendable brevity, tonight, I am sorry that I cannot recommend the House to accept the new Clause.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it the Home Office view that the treatment that might be accorded to 18 and 19-year-olds should be the same as is accorded to 14, 15 and 16-year-olds? Is there not a qualitative difference in relation to protection?

Mr. Sharples: The new Clause would institute the principle of random testing. The hon. Gentleman may have in mind to confine random testing to a particular age group or, as he does, to a particular section of the community—those who happen to be in school and those who happen to be selected for medical tests, and those do not always come round regularly. Many children may be tested only twice in the whole of their school


life. In spite of the fact that there are arguments in favour of the proposal, I would not recommend to the House that they should accept the principle of random testing even for this group.

Mrs. Renée Short: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that to accept the principle of tests being carried out during the course of school medical examinations would be to accept random testing. Children undergo a certain number of regular medical tests during the whole of their school life. These are laid down by the local health authority, and the education committee responsible. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed the new Clauses because they would give him an opportunity of dealing with the growing problem of addiction among school children. I do not want to give the impression that it is a major problem, because it is not. But it is a growing problem.
The hon. Gentleman will know that his predecessor commissioned research by Dr Wiener, which I think was reported in 1968, and indicated that there was a certain percentage of children who had experience of drug taking, generally involving amphetamines. Undoubtedly the number of children experimenting with drugs has increased since then. We know that the age range of the children has been reduced, and that it is no longer the 16, 17 and 18 year olds. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been glad to have had this weapon given to him to find out the school age group in which children are experimenting with drugs.
The hon. Gentleman also knows, from his work in the Department, that comment has been made for several years running in the annual reports of borstals, for example, on the numbers of boys of 16 and 17 who have been proved, after urine tests, to have been experimenting with drugs. That is clearly a matter of great concern.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about "Who do we tell, if the tests are carried out during the course of school medical examinations, that a child is experimenting with drugs?", clearly one tells the parents. The medical officer would know, and I should have thought that the child's general practitioner would

be told. The police do not come into this. We want a child to have medical care and attention to wean him off his habit. Therefore, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot accept my hon. Friend's new Clause. I do not know whether his reply to me will be the same as that which he gave to my hon. Friend, but I ask him to consider carefully whether this is not a valuable way of finding which children in the school age range are experimenting with drugs, and, having found them, to give them treatment.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I rise with hesitation to support the new Clause. I find it difficult to accept what my hon. Friend has said because I have a deep concern about the necessity to find out, if possible, how many school children are taking the drugs concerned in the new Clause, which are set out in Schedule 2, and where they are to be found.
When my hon. Friend was talking about random tests, I did not think that his defence held water. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) said, it is of paramount importance to find out which children are taking drugs. There is no question of the police being brought in, as both the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman have mentioned. It is a matter of reporting the facts to the doctor concerned.
I have personal experience of this problem among our young people. It is essential to do anything that we can to stop the taking of drugs by children of school age. This is the time when young people become addicted. It may be that they begin on "soft" drugs, but they rapidly become hard-liners.
The new Clause is not offensive and in no way infringes upon the liberty of the individual. I ask my hon. Friend to look at it again in a more sympathetic way.
At the moment, we are suffering from what might almost be called an invasion: many of our school children are taking drugs. The practice is damaging to then-health and to the morale of the country. It is essential to do all that we can to discover who the people are, but not with a view to punishing them, because what they need is treatment as early as possible. If this new Clause can help achieve


that end, I ask my hon. Friend to take due consideration of it and change his mind.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I hope that the Minister of State will not yield to the pressure being put on him from both sides of the House—

Mrs. Renée Short: Why not?

Mr. Ogden: I hope to explain. The pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) is very strong, especially when it is combined with that of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). It was started this afternoon, and it is continuing tonight. For that reason, I intend to detail my objections to the Bill that we considered earlier today, which resulted in a pyrrhic victory, and my views about the weaknesses of the new Clauses which we are now considering.
The weaknesses are considerable. New Clause 4 is less objectionable and a little more practical than new Clause 1, but it includes the words to which I objected to earlier:
… and shall not be required to obtain parental consent before making such a test.
Those are important words to include in any Measure.
A sizeable problem arises in new Clause 1. No one who has any knowledge of the misuse of drugs would deny that. There is a problem in some of our schools, but it does not involve the vast majority of pupils, as has been suggested. The proposals set out in the new Clause are not an effective or fair way of dealing with the problem, and the same applies to new Clause 4.
When new Clause 1 speaks of "a local authority", in practice it means an education committee, a health committee or a watch committee. Such a committee would have to report to the full council, with all the attendant publicity.
The Clause goes on
… with the consent of the medical officer of health of the county or county borough. …
Presumably that means that the medical officer of health of the county, the

county borough or the borough will have a veto. If he does not give consent, he has a veto on any proceedings. That may not be difficult in a county borough like Liverpool, where there are close relationships between the medical officer of health and the committee, but when one comes to consider the county authority of Lancashire and the two-tier authorities in that county, one has to bear in mind relationships between a municipal borough and its watch committee, health committee and advisory committee, and the comparative remoteness of the county medical officer of health who is required to give his consent. How can he know the circumstances of a school? He has to seek the advice of the local people concerned. In the county part of Lancashire, with a population of seven million, his consent could not have any relevance.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that, even in Lancashire, there is a considerable degree of drug-taking at the moment among school-age pupils? Would he not agree that, this would be under the supervision of the medical officer of health and would have to be with his permission? There would be no reason for this to be publicised; it could be kept very private. Would it not be worth while to stop even a few of these drug takers in Lancashire?

Mr. Ogden: That is an interesting point, but I want to point out an alternative to either of the new Clauses which could be much more effective—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot do it in this debate.

Mr. Ogden: Then I will confine myself to my objections to the Clause. The Clause would authorise a medical inspection of pupils. What sort of examination is this to be—blood samples, urine specimens, syringe marks? Will this apply to pupils at that school on that day, or those on the whole list of pupils who may be at the school on a particular day? These are small points, but some pressure has been applied by hon. Members and it should be answered in detail. What happens about absentees?
An even more objectionable point is the phrase "any school maintained by them", the local authority. Anyone who


has been a manager or governor knows that there are many types of schools—Church of England, Methodist, Roman Catholic, grant aided, State owned, not mentioning colleges and polytechnics. This will apply only to a very small percentage of schools.
What about the rights of a child to refuse a test? There is no mention of that in the new Clause, and that is the Clause that we are discussing. Subsection (2) is impracticable when it suggests that this should be directed solely to detecting evidence that the pupils have been or are taking any of these drugs. I do not think that there is a test which can be directed "solely" to this end. Even if there were, what about the other things which might be shown by the test—leukaemia, diabetes or anything else? Is the medical officer to deny them and pretend that they do not exist?
Then there is the point about presumption of guilt by association. We have always said—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This is true. One does not oppose random tests of people just because they have left a particular public house or club and then say that, because a situation is supposed to exist in a particular school, pupils attending it should take these tests.
What are the obligations of a medical officer if he discovers evidence of drug taking? He will have some degree of responsibility, I understand, to report to an authorised person—not necessarily only to the parents—and he might be in some legal dilemma about guilt by association. This is not the way to do it. If this is a practical suggestion and if it is necessary to discover what is happening in any particular school, certainly the parents of any child should know, before any tests take place, what is happening.
Under new Clause 4, if a local authority intends to ask for the inclusion of this in their examinations once a year, there is no objection to the local medical officer writing to the parents to see if they have any objections to a test on these grounds. If any headmaster thought that some of his pupils are taking drugs, what would stop him consulting his governors and the local medical officer and writing to the parents directly, in a registered envelope if necessary—we know that some letters do not always arrive—for the parents' consent to the

school making these tests on their children at some time during the next 12 months? This would not take away the responsibilities of the parents or guardians.
We are always arguing that people too often pass on their responsibilities to a headmaster or teachers, and this would be doing the same thing. This is not a practical suggestion but a dangerous one; I hope that the Minister will continue to resist it.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: Random tests are an emotive issue, but I suggest to those who feel strongly about the Clause that they are not the main issue. The main issue is a technical one.
The answer to the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) is that, even if we wished to do what she proposed, we are not scientifically able to do it completely yet.
My main complaint against the Clauses is that both are premature. Although we can at the moment identify certain drugs—I will not name which ones—we cannot necessarily quantify them, and there are some drugs which young people may be taking which can be neither identified nor quantified. It would be dangerous to start a system under which drugs A, B and C could be identified but not quantified and drugs X, Y and Z could not be identified. It might well be that a child on drug X, Y or Z would be in a much more dangerous condition than a child on drug A, B or C.
The Medical Research Council, as is shown by its report, has conducted a close examination of this matter. Those who have seen the scientific evidence will know that this is exactly where we are. We cannot do what some of my hon. Friends would greatly like done. I agree with the sentiment that we should stop at nothing to prevent the spread of drug dependence in schools. The problem is a practical one. In addition to the danger of the random test and the difficulty of knowing what to do with a child when it is ascertained that he is on drugs, the real obstacle to what we want to do is the scientific one.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am sure that every hon. Member applauds the motives behind the Clause and appreciates the concern which has moved my


hon. Friends the Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) to make this proposal. I agree with the Minister of State and the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that there is a paucity of detailed and hard evidence about the material facts. Unfortunately, there is evidence of drug taking among school children in certain areas, but we do not know how extensive the drug taking is and we have little idea of the national pattern.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: If it is known that there is drug taking, let this be reported to the doctor concerned and to the parents. I accept from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that some drugs cannot be identified or quantified. I regret that. However, let us identify and quantify what can be identified and quantified and report the cases.

Mr. Morgan: In so far as the knowledge is already with the education authority, I know of no rule of law or practice precluding the information from being handed to the appropriate authorities. I am sure that it would be so handed in every case. There is the question that many drugs would not be shown by the type of tests envisaged by those who support the Clause. There is also the point that in many cases knowledge of drug taking would be gained without the necessity of a physical test.
An education authority which suspects that there is a problem of this nature will in cost cases act in co-operation with the parents of the children concerned. Let us imagine that the case is a very acute one and that the parents refuse consent and will have nothing to do with it. I believe that the local authority could, where necessary, act under the provisions of Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1969. Under Section 1(2) it is possible for the court to make an order for a person up to the age of 17 in circumstances where
… his proper development is being avoidably prevented or neglected or his health is being avoidably impaired or neglected. …
In other words, where it is convinced that the parents' failure to give such consent does lead to his health being

imperilled it could act under the provisions of Section 1. The powers in that Act are sufficient. It may be that the problem will become more acute, but I very much trust and hope that it will not.

10.30 p.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: Does my hon. Friend accept that part of the difficulty in dealing with school children is that teachers cannot recognise the signs of addiction, so how would they be able to refer the children as he has suggested? The point of the new Clauses is that there shall be some kind of medical, scientific test to find the children that are experimenting with drugs. I know that the Department of Education and Science has issued guidance to teachers, but this is inadequate and not fully understood by the whole teaching profession.

Mr. Morgan: I am sure that my hon. Friend is making a valid point. But it is somewhat circumscribed by the fact that she is assuming all the time that the way to get evidence is by way of a physical test. Very often that will not be the best way. Indeed, sometimes it means an examination of the totality of a child's or young person's character before that evidence is gained.

10.32 p.m.

Dr. Tom Stuttaford: I have listened with great interest to what has been said, particularly as I know what trouble the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has taken. I was at the British Medical Association headquarters this morning, and everyone there was most impressed by all that the hon. Gentleman had to say. He has an impressive argument. Unfortunately, it falls down on one point mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). It is just not possible to do what is suggested. It is impracticable.
I must go into greater detail, because I understand very fully that the House is anxious about these problems. We all know that drug-taking goes on in schools, and hon. Members want to know how much of it goes on. But they must consider what the proposal would really entail for the school children, some of whom are girls of 15, 16 and 17. It is a criminal offence not to give a specimen of urine if one is suspected of being drunk in charge of a car. But it is not a


criminal offence not to give a specimen at a school medical examination. If the girl refuses, what is to be done? If it is taken forcibly, what psychological effect will that have? If it is forcibly collected and it is positive, what is to be done then? Is she to be created a heroine, so that she is the odd one out in the group? Is her perhaps slightly psychopathic character to be given a great boost, enhancing the characteristics we are trying to avoid?
The problem does not end there, because many school children are legitimately taking drugs. They may be epileptics taking barbiturates. When we discover that these children have barbiturates in their urine, are they to be held up to everyone as possible drug addicts, or will everyone know about their epilepsy? The wrong children may be suspected of being addicted. When the information has been collected, what is to be done with it? Are we to tell the parents or the family doctor? The family doctor may be the man whom the child will accept. The fact that the drug addict—if he can be called that, the experimenter—is taking drugs is probably a sign that he feels rejected or is rejecting his parents. He may well turn to the family doctor, and we do not want this relationship spoilt by the doctor having to tell the parents. At present most family doctors will not tell the parents if the child is 16 or 17, which is as it should be. A new adult relationship is growing up, and we do not want it to be destroyed.
The proposal is ethically undesirable. In practice it would be impossible, and it might cause damage, both psychological and physical. It is a good idea, but it just would not work.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I support what has been said by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) as to the impracticability of this scheme as it has just been outlined by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford). Quite apart from that, it seems to me that there is one glaring omission from the case presented, very forcibly, by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in that he gives no very sound reasons—indeed, I heard none at all—for not seeking to obtain parental consent. It seems to me that that omission is very serious.
What we ought to be aiming at is an educational process under which the teachers consult the parents where they feel that there is some prospect that the parents are unaware that their child may be taking drugs. I think that we could have a very humiliating experience for a large number of children. We have to set this in the greater context. I do not think that anyone would argue that a majority of our school children take drugs. Only a relatively small minority do. Would the medical test, for example, to be undertaken be specifically directed to drug addiction or be part of another medical test? This is not spelt out. If it were to be a single test to that particular end, then, for the reasons which have already been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, a large number of children would be given a very humiliating experience and for no very good reasons. For these reasons, I oppose the proposed new Clause.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: I would like to have supported the proposed new Clause because I remind myself of the situation in New York at the moment where, this year, over 50 children under the age of twelve have died from barbiturate and other drug addiction. That situation has arisen over the past three years.

Dr. Stuttaford: The barbiturates being taken by injection and not by mouth, I assume.

Mr. Gummer: That is largely true. One of the problems is that many of the cases which have been highlighted are unable to be tested by urine sampling. The new Clause has been put forward with an extremely good purpose and for good reasons but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said, it does not provide the answer.
I hope that the very fact that this proposal has been before the House will emphasise the very grave dangers which are facing our school children. They are dangers we should not forget. One of the problems of parental choice and freedom is that very often parents are unwilling to face the fact that there is drug-taking in our schools, that it is very widespread, and that, if we follow, as we have in the past, the situation in the


United States, we are in grave danger of finding ourselves with a very major national problem creeping upon us without any adequate means of forestalling it.
I hope that, although we should not agree to the new Clause, we will not thereby forget that, if we can find ways of testing children effectively, we should be prepared to go much further than the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) is in this case and, unlike in other issues such as fluoridisation, take the issue of life and death and say that we are prepared to take rather extreme measures if those measures could be effective.
My only reason for not opposing the new Clause is because I believe that it would not be effective and not because I believe that there is any principle which is greater than that of trying to protect our school children from the great dangers which await them if we are to take the comparison of the United States.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Until the last sentence of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer), I was content to leave the matter, but I am not prepared to go along with that last sentence which spoke of the life and death of children and taking from parents the ultimate responsibility.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) mentioned that random tests were somewhat emotive issue, and in my view none the worse for that. I should not be prepared at any price to say that these or similar tests could or should be conducted without the express permission of the parents. It is only on that point that I differ from my hon. Friend.

Mr. William Wilson: The issue of parental knowledge and consent goes to the root of the matter. I have known cases in my own experience when tests for drug taking have been carried out in schools without the knowledge of the parents, and always the response of the parents has been not to complain that the examination was carried out, but that it was carried out without their knowledge. If we have the consent and knowledge of the parents we have gone a long way to solving the problem raised by the new Clause.
Parents have often said to me in my professional capacity, "If only we had known". It is clear that the unspoken fear of many parents is that their children will take drugs without their knowledge. If some system can be devised which would take the parents along with the local authority in this matter, we should have not the opposition but the co-operation of parents. What has upset me tonight has been that the Government's response to the new Clause has not been to suggest a practical alternative to combat the difficulty which the new Clause raises. I had hoped to hear something to measure up to the size of the problem.

Mr. Dalyell: By leave of the House; it is my fault that we have got bogged down in the issue of parental consent. I warn hon. Members about some of the rules of the House. I had arranged to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the former Home Secretary, on Wednesday about my Ten Minute Rule Bill. I immediately telephoned the Public Bill Office, which I do not blame in any way, but by the time I wanted to make the change, there were only not five, but 4¾ sitting days left and—

Mr. Speaker: We may not now discuss the Ten Minute Rule Bill which the hon. Member wishes to introduce.

Mr. Dalyell: I only wished to warn hon. Members of some of the more obscure rules of the House. Anyhow, what happened was my fault.
I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer). Together with his hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke), we were in America with Senator Muskie during the earlier part of the month and Senator Muskie and his staff told me in graphic terms how bad was the situation not so much in Maine, but certainly in some of the industrial cities in the United States. No one looking across the Atlantic at what happens among school pupils in the United States can be complacent, for too often this country imports bad habits from America five or ten years later. Narcotics can be detected; amphetamines—incidentally, easily the most important—can be detected; heroin can with some difficulty be detected; and barbiturates


can be detected. We are really left with two major categories, one of which is cannabis.
10.45 p.m.
I should like to read out the relevant part of the Advisory Committee's Report:
Tetyahydrocannabinal (THC), which is believed to be the principal active constituent, cannot at present be detected in body fluids, although it is readily detectable in the raw material or in air samples of cannabis smoke. It is likely, however"—
this is the crucial part—
that this position will change since unpublished work indicates that a metabolite appears in the urine in reasonable amounts. Further, THC has now been synthesized and pure reference material is available.
Briefly, does this not add up to the fact that by the time legislation gets through this House, it is more than likely that cannabis will be traceable?
Then there is the question of LSD. Here, in the foreseeable future, there is no chance of detection. On the other hand, I put it to hon. Members that numerically, the LSD problem among schoolchildren is much less than that of cannabis, and very greatly less than that of amphetamines. I have no quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), except that I would not have dismissed an hon. Friend quite as lightly as he did. I certainly would not have the impertinence to tell him that he knew nothing about the mining industry. After all, before I came here I had to deal with precisely these problems in a previous incarnation. Furthermore, I could not believe my ears when he asked, "What would happen if they detected something else? What would happen if they detected leukaemia?" I should be very grateful if in any relation of mine leukaemia was detected at an early stage. I really find that argument impossible to believe.
Finally, there is the issue of the parental relationship. Here I am a bit of an optimist, albeit a naïve one. One of the reasons why I would not dream of dividing the House is because I know perfectly well that there are hon. Friends of mine—my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) is one—who are extremely doubtful that even if the parents knew they would be able to do much about it. Here I am an optimist. If parents knew at an early stage, I

should hope that in a large number of cases they would at least be able to do something. I should have thought pretty poorly of myself as a school teacher, if I had not been able to make at least some impression on my pupils. I am sure that that is the view of the N.U.T.
Although I had not intended to do so, I should like to conclude by reading a letter not from one of my constituents, but from the Pimlico district of London. It is from a lady who, among a fairly vast mail, has written to me. She wrote:
May I wish you luck and success with the Bill you are trying to introduce into Parliament. I have eight children, three of which are still at school, one at Grammar, one Comprehensive, one Primary, and I am all in favour of spot checks being done to children in school with or without parents' consent, as I fear for my children's safety where drugs are concerned.
This is not an untypical letter.
Perhaps if I explain why I feel the way I do. I have a son who will be nineteen years old in December. Until such time as he left primary school to go to Secondary Modern he was a well liked child. He was by no means an angel. He was just a typical boy. After he started in Secondary school he changed so much that I finally suspected he was taking drugs, so I took steps to have him treated. But as the time between my asking for help and getting it took some time, there was no positive proof. So I did everything I could to help the boy. He left school at fifteen and worked locally until I again suspected drugs. First, I took him to our own doctor who listened and advised. I then took him to the hospital who referred one to the drug addiction centre, where, after tests and a wait of two weeks, I was told my son was a heroin addict.
I do not believe in being an alarmist and I will not read the rest.
With my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) I visited a number of drug addict centres in the east of this city and including death itself, including pot taking, including all the awful sights I have seen in my life, the sight of 15- to 25-year-olds just mooning around, some unable to control their own limbs, was the most horrifying and harrowing sight I have ever seen.
I am sure that in his Ministerial capacity the Minister has also been to these centres. I have not the least wish to divide the House tonight. It would be thoroughly inappropriate to do so, especially after the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool,


West Derby (Mr. Ogden). All I say is: let us talk and reason together about this issue and if there is any undertaking from the Home Office that we could go and talk to senior officials and ministers, in depth, that would certainly satisfy my purpose in seeking to introduce my Bill under the Ten Minute Rule and this new Clause.

Mr. Sharples: By leave of the House. I want to respond warmly to the generous invitation of the hon. Member. Certainly this is a matter we should discuss. For practical reasons we are not able to accept the new Clause but if this debate has done nothing else it has brought home to the House, and I hope those outside it, the seriousness of this problem among young people. It is certainly a matter which I would be very willing to discuss with him and others who are interested in it.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 2

PRESCRIPTION FORMS FOR CONTROLLED DRUGS

(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide—

(a) for the issue by Executive Councils of separate forms for the purpose of prescribing controlled drugs; and
(b) for the printing of such forms on paper of a colour easily distinguishable from that on which other prescriptions are written,

and all controlled drugs prescribed in accordance with regulations under section 7 of this Act, shall be prescribed on the forms so provided.—[Mrs. Renée Short.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Renée Short: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of this new Clause is to try to take precautions against the theft of pads of prescription forms which can then be used by persons who seek to acquire drugs illegally. The suggestion contained in the new Clause is that for the purpose of prescribing controlled drugs listed in the Bill special forms should be used, printed in different colours from ordinary prescription forms to make them easily distinguishable.
If doctors had forms in brilliant pink, green or blue for such a purpose they

would, I hope, guard them very carefully and not allow them to go out of their possession. At the moment many doctors are careless with their prescription forms. I am sure that the Minister will have read the annual report of the Magistrates' Association for 1968–69 in which there is a list of the kind of crimes committed by persons anxious to obtain supplies of drugs. Apart from the obvious ones of theft from chemists' shops, hospitals and doctors' surgeries, the second most common crime was the theft of prescriptions and blank prescription forms, the object being to get hold of them and forge prescriptions which are then taken to the chemists for dispensing.
I understand that the medical profession and the pharmaceutical profession are in agreement with an amendment on these lines in the hope that such forms would be locked up in a doctor's surgery and produced only when actually needed.

Mr. Sharples: I understand the purpose of the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) in proposing this new Clause, and I have considerable sympathy with it. In Committee, we discussed the whole question of the regulation of prescriptions, and several Amendments were made to the Bill largely in line with the purpose which the hon. Lady has in mind.
There is as yet no great knowledge of the various controls which one might introduce at later stages. We made a number of studies of the systems in use in Canada and in other countries. As a result, Amendments were made to Clause 10, under which there is power to make precisely the requirement now proposed in the new Clause. It is Clause 10(2)(g), under which there would be power to lay down the form of prescription which might be used for any controlled drug.
I hope that the hon. Lady will accept my assurance and, in the circumstances, be willing to withdraw the Clause.

Mrs. Short: I accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance. I have now read the report of the proceedings in Committee, which I was unable to attend as I was out of the country. In view of the hon. Gentleman's assurance that the matter is


still under discussion, and he is considering ways and means of providing this sort of safeguard, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause No. 3

OBLIGATIONS ON DOCTORS AND PHARMA CISTS IN RESPECT OF CONTROLLED DRUGS

(1) A doctor treating a person with a controlled drug, or control drugs, shall be required to send each prescription to the same pharmacist and the person being treated shall be required to deal every time with that pharmacist.

(2) A pharmacist in doubt as to the identity of a doctor whose signature and stamp appear on a prescription form presented to him for the dispensing of a controlled drug shall refer the person by whom the form is presented to a local doctor for the verification of the prescription and shall dispense the drug only after such verification has been obtained.—[Mrs. Renée Short.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Renée Short: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose here is to deal with the third most common criminal offence committed by those who are anxious to obtain illegal supplies of controlled drugs, that is, to commit forgery in the use of stolen prescription forms or to make forged alterations or additions to legally obtained prescriptions.
Here again, there has been a clear lead given by the Pharmaceutical Society to the effect that doctors and pharmacists ought to co-operate to eliminate this kind of criminal offence. There have been many cases reported in the Press of forgeries committed in this way, particularly in large cities such as London and Birmingham, but the abuse of drugs is now so widespread that one could probably say with truth that forged prescriptions are to be found in all sorts of places, not just in large cities but, for instance, in respectable seaside towns.
All kinds of people may use stolen prescription forms or make forged alterations to prescriptions obtained legally. It may be not the young person of 16, 17 or 18 but, perhaps, the housewife who is hooked on pep pills, or the professional operator who, armed with a set of stolen

prescription forms, is in the market illegally to obtain large supplies of drugs so that he may push them on the black market and thereby make a great deal of money. There has been a call for co-operation between doctors and pharmacists. The hon. Gentleman has not been in a very giving mood this evening, but perhaps he will feel more generous about this.
11.0 p.m.
The only safeguard against the abuse which I have mentioned is for the doctor prescribing drugs to send the prescription to a pharmacist of the patient's choice by post without the patient handling it. This would remove the temptation to alter the prescription so as to obtain a larger supply of the drug. This can be done, but only where doctor, pharmacist and patient agree.
If a pharmacist receives a prescription which he has reason to believe has been altered, or if he thinks that the signature of the doctor is not as it should be, he should be able to refer the person by whom the form is presented to a local doctor for verification. This would be a safeguard where a person presents a prescription to a pharmacist to whom he is not known, perhaps in another town.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the new Clause, or at least part of it.

Dr. Stuttaford: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) has made some valid points. Very few doctors, if they are honest, would not admit to having had prescription pads stolen from them and used for obtaining drugs illicitly under a forged signature. But the new Clause would present a tremendous problem to the medical profession. The Bill covers an immense list of drugs which are used not only by addicts but by people who are in the terminal stages of carcinoma and may need to get the drug quickly and in a strange town.
I would go along with the hon. Lady as far as I could to try to cut down abuse. I would be happy to have prescription pads of different colours, and I think this would be a good move, but if we make it too difficult to obtain supplies of analgesic drugs which are used legitimately we may hinder the treatment of the sick, so we must be very careful.
If a reputable pharmacist receives a doubtful prescription, or if he does not know the patient and the doctor, he can telephone, and many of them do this already.
Secondly, if one has a known addict, most of us already send the prescription to the chemist, who is extremely helpful and will hand out the patient's daily ration, so that the patient does not handle the prescription. Already, therefore, there is a wide measure of cooperation. I should like to see that cooperation further extended, but I do not know that I want legislation for it, just in case the occasional—or not so occasional—patient who may be in considerable pain in a strange city cannot obtain the drugs which he or she needs to relieve the pain.

Mr. Sharples: I regret that I shall not be able to please the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) and recommend the House to accept the new Clause. There are serious objections to the proposals put forward by the hon. Lady.
First, the new Clause is objectionable because it would remove the existing discretion of patients generally to take their prescriptions to any pharmacist of their choosing. I am certain that the medical profession and the Pharmaceutical Society would strongly resent any external compulsion or interference of this kind in the traditional relationship of voluntary co-operation between practitioners and pharmacists.
I certainly accept that there is danger in the use of stolen prescription pads, which was referred to both by the hon. Lady and by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford). As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, however, if a pharmacist is in doubt about the identity of the signatory to a prescription, the right thing for him to do is to refer that doubt to the doctor whom he assumes to have originated it. He can do that, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, by telephone or other means. It is the normal practice of doctors to do that.
The other objection to the hon. Lady's proposal, which, again, was pointed out by my hon. Friend, is that it makes no provision for a patient who is temporarily

away from home, on holiday or for other reasons, who may have to take a prescription to a specified pharmacist. It would be impossible to take the prescription to another pharmacist if the patient were to be restricted to one pharmacist.
For those reasons, I am not able to recommend the House to accept the new Clause.

Mrs. Renée Short: I pointed out that the pharmacist to whom the prescription would be taken would be the pharmacist of the patient's choice. The Minister is not correct, therefore, to say that my proposal would interfere with the right of a patient to go to a pharmacist of his chosing. I made it clear that the patient would nominate the pharmacist to whom he wanted the prescription form to be sent.
I do not want to divide the House, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the call for this greater co-operation between doctors and pharmacists came from the President of the Pharmaceutical Society. It is not the universal practice, therefore, for doctors to do as the hon. Gentleman has said. Perhaps the fact that we have had this brief debate will have alerted both doctors and pharmacists to the need for more co-operation. I hope so.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

REGULATIONS AND ORDERS

Before making any regulations under this Act and before making any order under this Act (except an order made in any provision of this Act under which, in case of urgency, an order can be made with immediate effect) the Minister proposing to make the regulation or order shall consult such organisations as appear to be representative of interests likely to be substantially affected by the regulation or order.—[Mr. Ogden.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ogden: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The progress of the Bill through Parliament is getting almost as long as the "Forsyte Saga". I remind the House, however, that the original Bill, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr.


Callaghan) when he was Home Secretary, included in its major provisions the establishment of an Advisory Council and an expert committee. The present Bill, introduced by my right hon. Friend's successor, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), omitted any proposals for an expert committee. This point was considered and discussed in Committee. The Minister explained that there were reasons for it, but no consultations took place between the Department and outside interests about the decision to exclude any provision for an expert committee.
In later proceedings, because consultation with outside interests was an integral part of the discussion on the Bill in Committee, particularly on 5th November, the Minister of State gave firm unequivocal assurances that it was the intention of his Department, in the drawing up of rules or regulations, that full consultation would take place all along the line. The Minister said:
In reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), I repeat the assurance given by myself and that given previously by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) that affected interests will be fully consulted whenever the basic powers of control under the Bill are invoked. That is an assurance that runs right the way through and in particular, in relation to these very wide powers taken under Clause 10.
I also take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) that it is very much wider than simply consulting professional bodies. There are a wide range of interests that need to be consulted on this point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 5th November, 1970; c. 105–6.]
Those assurances were certainly accepted, and they are embodied in the new Clause. There is no doubt that the Minister's assurances will be carried through, but I see no reason for not strengthening them, because Ministers change and policies perhaps may change.
Because of the wide range of interests concerned—professional, social, and all the way along the line—I hope that the Minister will accept—of course, this in no way casts aspersions on his integrity or the assurances which he has given—that it would be a good thing to write into the Bill, which provides for a whole range of regulations and orders, that, before such regulations or orders are made, the Secretary of State will consult the interests which are likely to be affected.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: As a director of a group of pharmaceutical companies—I declare that interest at the outset—I should like to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, west Derby (Mr. Ogden). There should be adequate consultation with the industry before regulations or orders are made under the Act. I understand that my hon. Friend acknowledges that.
I did not serve on the Standing Committee, but I believe that that assurance was given on many occasions upstairs. If that is the Government's intention, if they accept, as they do, the validity of the hon. Gentleman's point, why not write it into the Bill? It is not a new suggestion. I served on the Standing Committee on the Medicines Bill in 1968. It was written into that Bill in almost precisely the same words as appear in the new Clause. So there is a respectable precedent. It is not breaking new ground. I cannot see why it should not also be written into this Bill.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the logic of doing in fact what he has already accepted that he ought to do in principle.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Sharples: I willingly reiterate the undertaking that I gave, and which has been quoted by the hon. Gentleman, about consultation. I do not think that there is any need for me to do more than say that my right hon. Friend and I stand fully behind what was said at that time. In view of that, I suggest to the House that the new Clause is unnecessary. There is the Advisory Council, which there is not in the case of the Medicines Act, on which there will be experts from all the various interests concerned, or the vast majority of interests concerned, and this is the primary body for consultation.
There are real difficulties about writing into an Act of Parliament a compulsion upon a Minister to undertake consultations. There is always the danger that some body with virtually no interest in the subject will feel that it should have been consulted. If compulsion is written into an Act of Parliament, there is always the danger that necessary action can be delayed because of the need to consult in that way.
We considered this very carefully in Committee. We spent a great deal of time debating the whole question of consultation. I gave the Committee an undertaking, I reiterate it now, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that it is not necessary to press the new Clause to a Division.

Mr. Ogden: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but I warn him that he is beginning to act like my hon. Friend the Member far Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) when he was a Minister in that Department. It may be that the advice is coming from the same quarter, from those whom we know are there but we cannot see.
The Minister was able to take the points made in Committee, or afterwards. There is still another place that will have to consider the Bill, and it may be that if the Ministers bears in mind the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Nigel Fisher), and some of the other comments that have been made, he will yet be able to suggest some form of words that will be acceptable and, I think, welcome. I appreciate the consideration which the Minister has given to this matter. I hope that he will bear in mind the danger that I mentioned of accepting advice too readily from time to time.
In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave withdrawn.

New Clause 6

SECRETARY OF STATE (REGARD TO ADDIC TIVE OR NON-ADDICTIVE PROPERTIES)

In considering the drugs to be included in Part 1 of Schedule 2, the Secretary of State must have regard to the addictive, or non-addictive properties of the stereoisomeric forms of any of the substances or drugs included in the Schedule at any time.—[Mr. Ogden.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ogden: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This is a technical Clause, a narrow Clause, in the words of the Parliamentary draftsman, and the purpose of putting it

down is to provide an opportunity for the Minister to give certain assurances. I have no intention of pressing the Clause to a Division.
I was provided with some information, indirectly, by Professor Arnold H. Beckett, to whom reference was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who is Head of the Department of Pharmacy at the University of London. He drew my attention to Schedule 2, and particularly to Class A and Class B drugs.
The information that he gave me, if I can use layman's terms, is that different forms of certain drugs are identical in substance but, because of their molecular structure, it is possible for one form of the drug to be addictive, and another form of it to be non-addictive, and in some parts of Classes A and B addictive forms of drugs are included, but in other parts addictive or non-addictive forms of the same drugs are not included.
It is as though there were right and left hand gloves. They are the same shape, but they are opposite to each other in form. It is like looking at oneself in a mirror. The real object might be addictive, the image may be non-addictive. Alternatively, the substance can have a negative charge of electricity which makes it addictive, or a positive charge which makes it non-addictive. In form the substances are identical, but to be technical, the molecular construction makes a difference whether the substance is addictive or non-addictive.
I ask the Minister to assure us that when he compiles these lists he will bear in mind the fact that a different stereoisomeric form of a substance may make it addictive or non-addictive, and it will not simply be included because it is in that form.

Mr. Sharples: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for translating the Amendment into simple terms which the layman can understand. I admit that it had originally caused me some difficulty and that I was not looking forward even to pronouncing some of the names on the piece of paper that had been handed to me. I willingly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks; that is, that the two forms, addictive and non-addictive, should be recognised in the compilation of Schedule 2.

Mr. Ogden: I am grateful for that assurance and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE MISUSE OF DRUGS

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 in page 2, line 30, leave out
'and Schedule 1 to this Act'.
This Amendment is a paving one to a number of others. It might, therefore, be for the convenience of the House if they were taken together the others being: No. 18 in page 29, line 6, Schedule 1, leave out 'Ministers' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
No. 19 in line 7, Schedule 1, leave out 'they consider' and insert' he considers'.
No. 21 in line 10, Schedule 1, leave out ' Ministers' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
No. 22 in line 12, Schedule 1, leave out ' Ministers' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
No. 23 in line 22, Schedule 1, leave out ' Ministers' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
No. 24 in line 32, Schedule 1, leave out 'the Ministers' and insert 'him'.
No. 25 in line 35, Schedule 1, leave out 'Ministers' and insert "Secretary of State'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): If the House so agrees.

Mr. Sharples: There is a reference in Clause 1(4) to the Ministers who will be concerned with the appointment of members of the Advisory Council. There was much discussion of this in Committee when the Bill was originally introduced by the previous Government and also when it was reintroduced later.
There is no intention of amending the subsection, save to leave out the words "and Schedule 1 to this Act" because while the consultation and discussion should naturally take place between Ministers—it was made clear in Committee the wide range of interests which the Advisory Council will have to con-

sider—the actual appointments should be made by one Minister, and that is the Secretary of State.
This is constitutionally correct and means that only one Minister will sign the letters of appointment. As drafted, it would mean that they would have to be signed by a variety of Ministers, and this would cause unnecessary delay and confusion.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I have no objection whatever to the constitutional propriety and prudence of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

AUTHORISATION OF ACTIVITIES OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL UNDER FOREGOING PROVI SIONS

Mr. Ogden: I beg to move, Amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 16, leave out' retail phramacist acting' and insert:
'a person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business acting in either case'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time the following Amendments: No. 3 in line 21, leave out 'retail pharmacist' and insert:
'person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business'.
No. 4 in line 30, leave out ' retail pharmacists' and insert
'persons lawfully conducting retail pharmacy businesses'.
No. 10 in page 26, line 13, Clause 37, at end insert:
'person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business", subject to subsection (5) below, means a person lawfully conducting such a business in accordance with section 69 of the Medicines Act 1968;'.
No. 11 in line 14 leave out
'(except in the expression "retail pharmacist")'.
No. 13 in page 26, leave out lines 29 to 32.
No. 14 in page 27, line 10, leave out 'retail pharmacist' and insert:
'person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business'.
No. 15 in line 12, leave out 'retail pharmacist' and insert:
'person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business'.


No. 16 in line 18, leave out 'retail pharamcist' and insert:
'person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business'.
No. 17 in line 20, leave out ' retail pharamcist' and insert:
'person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business'.

Mr. Ogden: The purpose of these Amendments is to delete the words "retail pharmacist" wherever they appear in the Bill, and replace them with the words
person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business".
The words that I prefer are taken from the Medicines Act.
This again is a point which was made when the previous Bill received a Second Reading and when the present Bill was considered in Committee. It is not merely a matter of establishing a status symbol for those who practise pharmacy, or of suggesting that chemists are a lesser breed. It is based on the responsibilities that pharmacists have under the law, and it prompts the suggestion that in this Measure we should adopt the form of words appearing in legislation going as far back as 1932.
In Committee, the Minister of State said that he would consider Amendments in almost this form. I hope, therefore, that he will be able to accept this present form of words which, though cumbersome, are more precise.

Mr. Sharples: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having put down these Amendments. They are in order, and I recommend their acceptance.

Mr. Ogden: I am most obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 3, in page 6, line 21, leave out 'retail pharmacist' and insert:
'person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business'.

No. 4, in line 30, leave out 'retail pharmacists' and insert:
'persons lawfully conducting retail pharmacy businesses'.—[Mr. Ogden.]

Clause 10

POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS FOR PRE VENTING MISUSE OF CONTROLLED DRUGS

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 8, line 44, at end add
(j) on the recommendation of two doctors approved under section 28 of the Mental Health Act 1959 to prohibit, for a stated period, administration or supply of controlled drugs for out-patient treatment to a named person and to authorise—

(a) compulsory detention either for observation or assessment for not more than 28 days
(b) compulsory detention for treatment in secure conditions for not more than one year.

In a sense, I should apologise for reviving an issue which was debated at length in Committee. But this is a very important issue and, even at this late hour, I do not apologise for putting one or two new suggestions to my hon. Friend and offering other hon. Members who may be interested the chance to contribute.
The Clause raises in a new form the difficult issue of compulsory treatment for those who are addicted. Instead of the word "compulsion", I prefer the expression
… the degree of control which we shall exercise
over these people.
In Committee, my hon. Friend very reasonably accepted the recommendation of the Sub-Committee on Rehabilitation that, for the time being, there should be no major change in the law in respect of compulsory treatment. The Sub-Committee went on to say that this was a subject which should be kept under review, and it made it clear that the last word had not been said.
I call attention to the fact that, as a result of the Sub-Committee's Report, there has also been produced a very persuasive document by the Magistrates Association. The relevant part of it was compiled by three doctors on behalf of that Association, and it makes the case not for compulsion but for a much stronger degree of control than we exercise at present. That is the point which I want to rehearse once again. The


magistrates' case is very persuasive. First, they assert, what no-one can deny, that the mode of spreading drug dependence includes a certain amount of proselytisation. They regard the dangers to those who are not yet afflicted as no less than they have been in the past, and I am sure that that is right.
What we have heard is a clear conflict of interest between those at risk and those already addicted. Many doctors will argue persuasively that for those already addicted a greater degree of compulsion would be a mistake—even a stronger degree of control. But what also a number of doctors will argue, no less reasonably, is that, on behalf of those at risk, that is, those who have not yet indulged in any form of drug abuse, we should exercise more control than we do now for those who may spread that risk.
11.30 p.m.
The magistrates go on to admit, what also we know to be true, that admission of the sort of patient that we have in mind is difficult because there is a lack of suitable accommodation. We have no closed wards for those who need a firm cure for drug dependence. They go on to say—most people would support this—that they are entirely with those who are anxious to avoid any necessity for a court appearance before action is taken.
At present, of course, there is no clear alternative to a court appearance in getting the detention of someone whom a doctor considers should be detained in his own interest and the interests of the community. Yet they argue, along with a number of doctors, that there are cases in which compulsion is necessary because the motivation for cure vacillates. Where in a sense the patient is kept at will, then frequently at a crucial stage in what might otherwise be a cure, the patient opts out.
Finally, the magistrates would like to see—this is a very reasonable proposition—the establishment of at least one centre for the therapeutic treatment of these cases. They envisage a centre with a secure perimeter and a liberal hospital regime. As yet, we have nothing on those lines. I have mentioned before the sort of experiment running on those lines in Hong Kong. One must be careful before comparing circumstances in one country with those in another, but those familiar with the regime at Tai-Pan will know

that this is the sort of regime which is proving successful there and might prove successful elsewhere.
But what I would bring to my right hon. Friend's attention in recommending that these considerations of the magistrates be carefully weighed is that the virtue of a centre with a secure perimeter, with a little more discipline than we have in any institution at the moment, would be that it would prevent absconding and also the smuggling in of drugs, which would of course wreck the cure of anyone engaged in a difficult course of treatment.
The centre would have more than one use. It could, if built on the right scale, help in certain cases of alcoholism, and could be used for young people suffering severe psychiatric difficulty, for whom again no suitable accommodation is provided.
The crucial point is spelled out in this passage in the memorandum of the Magistrates' Association:
Further consideration should be given to the desirability of perpetuation of the concept that a drug dependent patient has a right to demand the continuing supply of maintenance doses of his drug of addiction.
As I said in Committee, this raises the main issue on the Bill. We have accepted this mode of State maintenance. I have always been in some doubt about the respectability of it. Added to that, we have rejected any course which increases the number of people likely to seek a permanent cure.
I do not believe that we can continue in this way indefinitely. Leaving aside the risks to the community, I do not believe that in our own interests we should continue with this policy of accepting that those dependent on dangerous drugs shall rely indefinitely, as long as their systems stand it, on the free supply of drugs at the State's gift.
My only purpose in tabling the Amendment was to obtain an assurance from my hon. Friend before we leave this part of the Bill that the issue will not die with the passing of the Bill into an Act but that it will be kept under active review and that we shall pursue vigorously our efforts to increase—I do not say the sanctions, but the disciplines which will enable us to bring more people, who may well wish it for themselves if they could be brought to that point, into the ambit of cure as opposed to maintenance.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I am glad that this issue has been raised but sorry that we are debating it at this late hour, because its seriousness demands that it should be discussed at greater length than is possible at this time of night.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has made it clear that a very great part of the emphasis is being placed on the question of facilities for treatment and care that clearly are not yet available. This must be understood by those who call for a greater degree of compulsion in forms of treatment of patients, because what they are really after are greater treatment facilities.
Some of us who have been involved in examining the evidence on this question have been interested in how many of those who gave evidence, including the Magistrates' Association, have made clear their concern on this aspect. Those who have given evidence from the Prison Department, for instance, have expressed concern that so far we have not developed the kind of accommodation that offers the best hope for care and treatment.
Perhaps "treatment" is not always the right word. Some people are coming round to the view that an establishment which enables those who are dependent on drugs to be withdrawn from the whole drug field for a reasonable period is the most that we can hope for. Some take the view that withdrawing people for a period of years enables them to readjust and to be no longer at risk to the same extent. Some people take the view that there are certain ages when people are particularly at risk and that it may help if we can get them over that period. But when we consider compulsion, even in the limited form suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, we are considering very serious interferences with individual liberty, and we must look at the question very calmly and carefully to see how it might apply. The right hon. Gentleman himself rather suggested that such a provision might well apply to alcoholics and others. That was the assumption behind what he said, and there is a wide field of social deviant that we would no doubt have to consider if we proposed to extend the existing compulsory powers.
People are perhaps not as conscious as they should be that there are already fairly considerable compulsory powers. It is very important to be satisfied that those powers are adequately used and that there is a real need for their extension before we go further. Many of those who gave evidence to the Sub-Committee with which I was connected strongly felt that the existing powers were adequate and that they had found no need to consider wider powers. Some perhaps even doubt the value of some of the existing powers. There is a wide range of evidence to which we must pay attention.
It has been accepted for most purposes that in order to apply compulsory powers for treatment we must normally be thinking of the needs of the community as a whole and not specifically, or perhaps mainly, about the problem of the individual. If we are thinking of what may be good for someone himself we are extending this area of interference with individual liberty further than we would normally wish. Normally we have used this power only where there is a clear danger to the wider community.

Mr. Deedes: I know that the hon. Gentleman will not exaggerate the degree of liberty enjoyed by a narcotics addict.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Of course. This point has been raised many times. It has been argued by some who have given evidence to us that such people are in no position to determine their best interests. Here there is a very close analogy with the Mental Health Act. The interference may be for relatively short periods, and at other periods those concerned are fully in control, or almost in control, of their own affairs and their own actions. There is a tremendous range.
What struck many of us, when looking at the problem and hearing evidence from those who were most strongly eager to extend the existing powers, was that we found it almost impossible to obtain any definition of those to whom they would apply the powers. I think that we all felt that we must achieve a definition if we were to propose an extension. We must be clear to whom we would propose to apply it. It was not clear to us then, nor is it clear now. We have certainly accepted that there is a great need


for much further investigation of the whole issue not necessarily exclusively with regard to the drug addict but other groups. There have been recent studies which have some bearing on this with regard to alcoholics and they may be of value. There is also the fact that we have only recently passed legislation dealing with young offenders. It gives valuable and flexible powers of handling young offenders which may have some bearing on wider categories—young adolescents and others, perhaps. This is worth looking at as an area of investigation which deserves further consideration.
11.45 p.m.
I think that some people are rather too easily tempted to draw an analogy between various forms of sickness and illness which may be contagious and the drug addict, but the analogy is not entirely satisfactory, as is apparent to most people. In most cases of contagious disease, we usually know what kind of treatment we want to apply. I wish that could be said of the drug addict, but it cannot, and we are deluding ourselves if we think that there is some easy way of escaping from the great wide social problem before us merely by saying that we provide compulsory treatment when we know very well that, except in relatively rare circumstances, treatment is a very uncertain factor.

Dr. Stuttaford: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that we cannot treat smallpox but we do isolate it?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I do not think that is a particularly good analogy either. I think that it is positively harmful for anyone to try to suggest that the drug addict problem is anything other than a whole complex of problems and that it is not very deeply linked with social problems of a very wide character. If we give even the appearance of thinking that there is some kind of shortcut, I think we are deluding ourselves.
All the experience we have been able to draw from other countries and the various forms of compulsory treatment they have initiated is not encouraging. I agree that we should look at other proposals, as the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but the experience of the United States, which has the greatest experience, offers perhaps some suggestion that we should not give up hope of the

possibility. But I do not think that we can go beyond that hope. It does not suggest any easy solution and certainly does not suggest that there is any short-period solution.
If one is to move into this area—which, indeed, we may have to consider further—of the provision of special security institutions such as have been suggested, then it is certainly a long-term matter and one which will require almost certainly longer than the year provided for in the Amendment. We would be misleading ourselves if we thought that there was any likelihood of anything shorter than that. We have to set against that the very grave dangers inevitably involved in any interference with individual liberty and the relationship of it to all the other types of social problem which might well be thought to qualify.
Certainly this matter should be further considered. I hope that the new bodies to be set up under the Bill will regard this as a matter of very great importance and will initiate studies and take account of the other groups in the social problem area which are very closely allied to this question. But it would be a great mistake—and I do not really believe that the right hon. Gentleman proposes this—to write it into the Bill. Rather should we encourage the further investigations which are so urgently needed.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: It may seem odd to some hon. Members, and it certainly seems odd to me, that after five years, during which drug addiction has been an increasingly important social problem, we should not have had available a full and authoritative study of the question of the compulsory treatment of addicts. I do not mean in any way to criticise the Sub-Committee with which the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) had so close a connection, because after all, his subcommittee was asked to undertake a review of the compulsory treatment of addicts only in March, this year, and it is understandable that it should not have had time to put before us a complete and balanced study of the problem.
However, the Sub-Committee established that powers for ordering compulsory treatment were fairly widely used already. Of some 3,000 admissions of


drug addicts to psychiatric hospitals in 1968, some 459 were admitted under compulsory treatment orders, mostly under the Mental Health Act, but some under Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948. I understand that the number of probation orders made under that Section has increased sharply in recent months. The principle of the compulsory treatment of drug addicts is therefore already in wide use.
Whether it should be extended was the subject of much evidence to the Sub-Committee by consultant psychiatrists. Some consultant psychiatrists working with drug addicts did not use compulsory powers and did not wish to do so; others used them and considered that the existing powers were adequate; some used the existing powers but considered that the extent to which they should be applied to addicts needed to be clarified and that additional powers were needed. In other words, the House will not be surprised to find, the consultant psychiatrists, who were expert in this matter, had every possible option open to them at one time or another.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It is interesting to note that those who had the closest and most regular contact with drug addicts were almost unanimous in not wanting any extension of the powers.

Mr. Goodhart: That may be. But I come to the memorandum which I think has been sent to all hon. Members who were on the Sub-Committee and to all hon. Members of the House who have shown an interest in this subject. After all, the Magistrates' Association has some expertise in this field, and the psychiatrists are not the only ones who have expert knowledge. Certainly, when hon. Members now on this side of the House were in opposition, we used to quote the texts of resolutions passed by the Magistrates' Association as though they were almost Holy Writ. It is from three members of the Magistrates' Association who have considerable medical experience of this problem that the memorandum has come, urging that the powers should be increased.
The hon. Member for South Shields said that his Sub-Committee was unable to think of any particular group to which added powers of compulsory treatment

might be applied. In their memorandum, the Magistrates' Association picked out one group. After pointing out that they accepted that difficulties were bound to occur in securing the co-operation of a patient where admission for treatment was compulsory, and after stating that they did not want it to minimise the problems, they went on to say:
At the same time, we feel that in many cases compulsion is necessary, particularly to support the patient when his motivation for cure vaccilates.
A number of us in this House have had some experience of addiction when the desire for cure has vacillated. It would be fair to say that, between 1948 and 1958, I gave up my addiction to cigarettes at some 40 different times. But it was not until 1958, when I had the external discipline of a doctor telling me that I was particularly sensitive to nicotine and would do better to give it up for the sake of my health, that I finally gave it up.
Most hon. Members have a considerable amount of self-discipline, but the group of drug addicts about whom we are talking tend to have less self-discipline than the normal run of citizens in this country. Those who had any self-discipline to start off with, tend to have their powers eroded by the drugs which they take. So I should have thought that those who showed some willingness to undertake a voluntary cure, but who needed the support of the discipline of compulsion in order to see the cure through, would benefit by the acceptance of a Clause such as this.
The point has been made by my right hon. Friend that the facilities for compulsory treatment are not in existence in this country at the moment. Here we have the chicken and egg situation because, until we have adequate powers of compulsory treatment, it seems highly unlikely that the Department is going to make the necessary money available to provide those facilities.
It is obvious that until those facilities are available doctors will not use the powers they already have under the Mental Health Act or Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act. I hope that in the next few months we will have a strong lead from the Government over the provision of facilities and that my hon. Friend will accept this Amendment. If


he is not prepared to do so now perhaps he will consider taking steps in another place to obtain reserve powers so that at some future time new powers for compulsory treatment can be brought in without the necessity of bringing in another Misuse of Drugs Bill. It is not every year, thank heaven, that we have such a Bill. The tide of informed opinion, medical and lay, is moving towards a wider use of compulsory powers.

12 midnight.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: I want to take issue with the point raised by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) on the question of compulsion. There is considerable evidence, not only from the work done at St. Mary's Spelthorne, in this country, but by Odessey House in America, that the circumstances envisaged in this Amendment would be very helpful in the treatment of drug addiction. We should be mistaken if we felt that we could leave this provision to some future time when we might know more about this. I take seriously the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) who said that we will not have such a Bill every year.
We are giving ourselves the opportunity to make a change in the law, enabling us not only to have a further provision of the kind envisaged here but also to take advantage of experience in America. This suggests that if we can only give addicts the first chance to come to terms with the effects of drug-taking and strengthen them at the time at which their will vacillates, we can introduce them to a therapeutic community in which they will be able to overcome their addiction. The experience of the drug addiction centre in my constituency is that any extension which would give them that chance at a point at which their will may not be very strong is something that they would welcome. So far I have not met, certainly in the U.S.A., any opposition to this kind of enactment. The feeling there was that such a measure would help considerably.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the strong feeling expressed in America that there is a danger that some hospitals have been turned into prisons so far as general attitudes are concerned and that if we institute this

sort of compulsion we may endanger the possibility of getting certain people in for treatment at all?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right that there are real dangers. My experience, from spending some time in a drug addiction centre and living there was that there were a number of people who had been referred to it under similar provisions making remarkable recoveries from addiction which would not have been started if the oportunity had not been available for them to be referred, compulsorily, to Odessey House in this case.
It would be a great mistake to allow this opportunity to pass without making some such change in the Bill. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will at least assure the House that opportunities compulsorily to refer people who come to doctors as envisaged in the Clause will not be opposed because, in some sense, we do not have all the information which we should like to have. We shall not have another opportunity to do it. Experience in the United States and at advanced centres in this country suggests that this proposal would be well worth adopting, and I should be sad to see it lost.

Mrs. Renée Short: I find it a little odd that hon. and right hon. Members opposite should be supporting this draconian proposal for compulsory detention for treatment in secure conditions when, only a short time ago, they made such heavy weather of new Clause No. 1, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), which made the rather gentle suggestion that there should be tests carried out at school children's medical examinations. I suppose that the leopard is only now showing its real spots.
The difficulty in the whole subject of treatment of drug addiction in this country is that there is no agreed method of treating the addict. The onus is on the Royal Colleges in that they have not come together and made up their minds on how drug addicts should be treated. In the circumstances, the proposal put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) should be strongly resisted, because we do not really know what we should be setting in train.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there is a system of treating drug addicts by giving them controlled doses of the drug to which they are addicted. This, again, is not agreed by all doctors treating addicts. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are some doctors who treat addicts on hard drugs by oral administration of non-addictive drugs. We just do not know enough about the different methods of treatment at present used by the medical profession.
I have a certain amount of sympathy with the first part of the proposal—
compulsory detention either for observation or assessment for not more than 28 days".
It does not follow that drug addicts always tell the truth about how much they need of their particular drug, and only by having the patient in hospital and really observing him can one find out the level of his addiction. I agree about that, but I strongly resist the second part of the proposal, that is, for
compulsory detention for treatment in secure conditions for not more than one year".
The right hon. Gentleman described rather vaguely the sort of secure conditions which he had in mind. The fact that this idea comes from the Magistrates' Association does not weigh heavily with me. I do not think that magistrates are the repositories of all wisdom on this or any other matter which they discuss. There are a lot of rather fuddy-duddy people in the Magistrates' Association who are not in touch—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Not at all. I have served on the bench, and I have seen them at close quarters. There are many magistrates who are not in touch with young people and their problems or with medical treatment, or, indeed, with the way in which we treat offenders in our system. The Report of the Estimates Committee which my Sub-Committee produced in 1967 had a few things to say about the way in which magistrates deal with young people. I recommend hon. Members opposite to have a look at this.
The available secure conditions are rather limited. If we are talking about young persons, a borstal institution is not the place to send a young drug addict, if only because there will be very little treatment available. The same can be said about sending an adult drug addict to prison. Prison psychiatric services are

grossly under-staffed and grossly over-loaded, and the treatment facilities needed by the addict are not available.
If we are talking about secure conditions in an establishment like Grendon psychiatric prison, facilities are available there but drug addicts are not necessarily criminals, and putting them into a prison environment would militate against successful treatment. The only really suitable hospital is a special hospital where secure conditions can be provided and where there are medically qualified staff capable of dealing with addicts. The idea is fraught with difficulty. There is the difficulty of getting the patient into secure conditions and of providing a physical environment in which success could be achieved. To achieve success there has to be co-operation from the patient; nothing will be achieved by compulsion. We should do much more to motivate drug addicts towards acceptance of treatment on a voluntary basis.
Emphasis should be laid on the environment to which the patient returns after treatment. It is foolish, and a waste of medical resources, to push patients out of hospitals or treatment centres back into the environment where they became addicts. We should be supplementing the voluntary organisations who are working on this problem. A small number of people are working very hard, and with some success, but the resources available to them are grossly inadequate. We should be giving a lead in providing a bridging service between hospital treatment and the return to ordinary life. If we have money to spend we should spend it on this and not on setting up prison-like establishments which would be unsuccessful and difficult to operate.
I hope the Minister will resist the arguments of the right hon. Member for Ashford and hon. Members on the Government side who have supported him, and not be tempted to give concessions to them.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Earlier, I found myself very much disagreeing with the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) about the testing of schoolchildren. Now, very much to my surprise, I am leaning towards her view and against that put forward by my right hon.


Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart). I appreciate the seriousness of the problem and the reasoning which they have put forward, but I am not yet fully persuaded that the degree of danger in terms of civil liberty which is exposed by their proposal is justified.
As I understand my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, the purpose of his Amendment is twofold. It seems to me that it is partly a penal purpose. Perhaps that is overstating it a little, but part of the essence of what my right hon. Friend is saying is that he believes that these people should be locked up. It is not unfair to say that one can see in that something of a penal purpose about it. In particular, the fact that the Amendment is in terms of a maximum of a year rather than in terms of detaining people until such time as they shall be considered cured to some extent reinforces my view.
Irrespective of whether there is something of a penal element about the Amendment, however, we can question it also on its therapeutic impact. Obviously, I am not arguing that detention is solely intended to be penal—clearly, it is primarily meant to be an aid to therapy—but would detention serve a therapeutic purpose?
I believe that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and his Committee found that the volume of evidence from the doctors whom they saw tended to support the view that this proposal was, at least in the light of present knowledge, likely to do more harm than good. They argued, I think with force, that a degree of willingness and co-operation is probably necessary on the part of the patient if treatment is to be effective. I am not sure that the notion of compulsory detention would encourage that degree of willingness. I know that, in some cases, the patient is, in a sense, beyond it, but that is not true in all cases and I believe that the introduction of compulsory detention would, to some degree, produce harmful conditions.
Secondly, it is valid to say that the possibility of detention could discourage addicts from seeking treatment. They might well think that if they came forward and revealed their addiction, they could land themselves in trouble. Thirdly,

the hon. Member for South Shields asked whether these powers could be confined to this one group of drug addicts without their being extended to alcoholics, sexual deviants, and so on. That is another valid point. We must think about this much more deeply and carefully than is possible in this relatively short debate.
Fourthly, the question has been recalled of whether we know enough about treatment and the success or otherwise of the sort of methods that are available to justify the introduction of this compulsory detention. In the history of mental health, there has been a great deal of argument about the way in which compulsory referral to hospital should take place. A long civil liberties-cum-medical argument is involved here, and it would be a great mistake to do anything precipitate in this problem.
Admittedly, all these points which I have put forward are tentative points and it is conceivable that, in time, we will come to realise that compulsory detention is justifiable. It is feasible that we may reach that position. There would, however, need to be a very strong case for it and, certainly, a stronger case than has so far been made.
I acknowledge that the Amendment is not, as it were, seeking to introduce compulsory detention; it is seeking only to introduce the power for the Secretary of State to introduce regulations which would introduce compulsory detention. If we were prepared to accept that, then, at the very least, these regulations should require positive affirmation by the House. This is not envisaged in the Bill as it now stands.
There is an important issue of principle at stake. To allow these new regulations through on the nod, as it were, would not to my mind be aceptable. I am not yet persuaded that we need the power to make these regulations in the Bill, and I feel that it would be wrong to accept it at this stage. I am sure that the new advisory council will give a lot of thought to this question. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of the Leader of the House and of our legislators to introduce a new short Bill, if necessary. However, I do not believe that it is necessary at the moment.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am sure that we all agree that the right hon. Member


for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and his hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) have done a good service by bringing forward the Amendment, because it enables the House to remind itself of the great conflict in this situation between medical considerations and considerations of personal liberty.
Some doctors state their case clearly, as did Dr. Max Glatt, the British delegate to the World Health Organisation, when he put it in this way:
Why should we stand by and see people die?
On the other hand, there is the libertarian case, which can be stated in these terms: that with very few exceptions, the courts are not entitled to deprive persons of their liberty, unless those persons have committed very serious criminal offences or have been deliberately in contempt of those courts.
Therefore, although the idea is fundamentally sound, that unless there is a known therapy which guarantees a fairly high prospect of success in the treatment of persons addicted to drugs, there would be no justification for detention in the terms envisaged by the Amendment.
Furthermore, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), whose detailed knowledge and experience of these matters we greatly appreciate, it is highly unlikely that any caution would bring about the desired results in this connection.
I mentioned that it was unusual for the courts to have power to deprive a person of his liberty, save in the circumstances to which I referred. However, I should point out that it is not the courts which are vested with authority here; it is the Home Secretary. Clearly, even if this were limited to the most serious cases—I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields that it would be extremely difficult to draw the borderline between these cases and alcoholics, for example—it would clearly be wrong to vest the Home Secretary of the day with such judicial powers. Indeed, there is no provision here for a hearing, and there is no mention of any appeal procedure. Therefore, I should argue that, as the Amendment stands, it must be regarded as wholly unacceptable.
I remind the House that the Brain Committee, both in 1961 and in 1965, came to a definite conclusion about this matter, because it stated:
We believe that every addict should be treated energetically as a medical and psychiatric problem. The evidence presented to us indicates that the satisfactory management of these cases is not possible except in suitable institutions. We are not convinced that compulsory committal to such institutions is desirable. Good results are more likely to be obtained with co-operative rather than with coerced patients. At a time when the compulsory treatment of the mentally sick is being steadily diminished we see no ground for seeking new powers of compulsion for the treatment of drug addicts.
I concede that the problem is such a serious and complex one that it cannot be left there and, as I suggested in Committee, I should very much like to see the Home Secretary, the Minister of State, and officials in the Home Office directing their minds to the possibility of having for adults something along the lines of the provisions for children in Sections 11 to 19 of the Children and Young Persons Act. There should be a system which enables a supervision order to be made which is stricter in terms than the probation order made under Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, but which, nevertheless, falls short of detention in the terms of the Amendment. I do not suggest that such a judicial power should be vested in the Home Secretary. It should be vested in the courts.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): Perhaps I may start by referring to the helpful comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and his reference to what, for shorthand purposes, I may call the Blenkinsop Sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence. The interim conclusion of that Sub-Committee was that it did not wish powers to be taken in this Bill, whilst conceding, as I do, that the whole question of compelling addicts to undergo treatment and rehabilitation
deserved more thorough and wide-ranging study ".
The Government accept that general proposition. We shall be considering this question of fuller study in the light of the fuller report which we believe and hope the Blenkinsop Sub-Committee will


presently be presenting. I hope that the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) will accept that the specific point made by him in his concluding remarks about narrow and legal changes which might come into view will be taken into consideration in this fuller study.
There has been a fascinating debate on this whole evenly balanced subject, with which the Blenkinsop Sub-Committee occupied itself, of detention under compulsion and the liberty of the subject. Perhaps I come down on the side of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short). I remind the House that really there are two stages that we have to take into consideration when dealing with an addict. There is not only the cure, but also the rehabilitation, and the significant reality which the House has to bear in mind is that although for purposes of analysis we can divide these two treatments into cure and rehabilitation, in terms of the best practice this is indivisible.
The most modern continuum treatment centres follow a policy of gradually reducing the dosage of heroin addiction as part of the cure, subsituting for it methadone, whilst simultaneously sending the addict, still in a sense addicted, into the context of normal life in the community in an attempt, through the agencies of social workers, employment officers, and perhaps probation officers, to find satisfactory work for them so that they can take a normal part in communal life even whilst remaining addicted. The whole process is inevitably bound up with rehabilitation.
12.30 a.m.
I ask the House to reflect on what would happen if one artificially divided this process by compelling the addict to suffer detention as the first part of this artificial division—namely, the cure part—and then, when the cure is alleged to have been completed, to discharge him into the community for rehabilitation. As soon as he was discharged from his compulsory cure, the necessary confidence and links between his enforced detention and rehabilitation would be broken.
Hon. Members will accept that there is a contradiction in terms here. First one begins by making the addict a sort

of voluntary in-prisoner. I cannot see, therefore, how such a form of treatment could possibly coexist with this artificial division between cure, under detention, and attempts thereafter to rehabilitate when the patient, the prisoner, wants to do nothing more than shake the dust of the detention centre or prison centre from him. Shades of Russia and Solzhenitsyn readily spring to mind. This is bound to be terrifying unless it is really free.
If there is to be a genuine continuum between cure and rehabilitation, it must happen in a condition of mutual confidence. There must be willing cooperation. We must, therefore, give great thought to this question of actually projecting the addict into communal life while he remains partly addicted and while he is going through the process of reduced dosages. The House and, no doubt, the Blenkinsop Sub-Committee will wish to weigh this point. On the basis of what little we know about this, I do not believe that it would be easy to make this division between creative, willing rehabilitation and enforced detention for cure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) went so far as to express the hope that detention would prove appropriate and that we would accept the Amendment in its present form. I ask him to weigh carefully the points which have been made by a number of hon. Members on both sides on the subject of the freedom of the individual. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) made it eloquently.
The Amendment would give my right hon. Friend power to make regulations which would have a profound impact on the liberty of the individual. I do not think that regulations are a proper instrument for taking far-reaching powers such as enforced detention for up to 12 months for people whose misdemeanour is extremely difficult to define in a Statute. How would one define my right hon. Friend's example of the proselyser? It was difficult enough trying to define a prostitute under the Street Offences Act.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: Is my hon. Friend aware that Clause 28(2) is the underlying feature of the Bill? What has he to say about that in relation to the liberty of the individual?

Mr. Alison: I am relieved to see my learned Friend the Solicitor-General in his place.

Mr. Ogden: With friends like that, the hon. Gentleman does not need an opposition.

Mr. Alison: It is nice to see the experts present.
It is not only the liberty of the individual which may be profoundly at risk if such questions of definition are left to mere regulation. There are obviously other unsatisfactory aspects of the Amendment. The reference to the two doctors, for example, falls short even of the safeguards that we have written into the Mental Health Act, under which not only the two doctors are brought into play, but the consent of the relation, friend, or member of the family. The extent to which we have isolated the unfortunate addict from the parental context of the discussions is striking.
The two doctors, in another Act, have often been the subject of considerable misgivings and disquiet, in that it is alleged that abuses arise when the opinions or wishes of two doctors are held to be relevant to a given state of affairs. There are the same attendant risks here if two doctors are brought in without the safeguards of the member of the family or parent that we find in the Mental Health Act.
I must ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham to accept our firm commitment not finally to have made up our minds on the deeply complex balance of views on this problem. We are anxious to pursue the matter in further study. I ask them to allow the Government to reject the proposal that either we accept this form of words for imposing a regime of compulsion, or that we might, in so short a time as the consideration of this Bill in another place, introduce a more perfect form of words. We agree that further study is required, and that will be made.
With those assurances, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider it reasonable to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he take into account an earlier report of the Rehabilitation Sub-Committee, which called

for special research and study into the relative effectiveness of compulsory treatment in prison and voluntary treatment in hospital? This has been further supported by the recent working party of the Medical Research Council. I hope that this will prosper, and that the hon. Gentleman will do all that he can to encourage that research.

Mr. Alison: I happily agree to that general proposition, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will underline it in his Sub-Committee if he thinks that there is scope for it in its report.

Mr. Deedes: With the leave of the House. May I thank my hon. Friend warmly for his very fair and capable reply to this Amendment? He talked more convincingly than most doctors on the subject. If he made that speech often enough, he would be in danger of making up minds.
The House will realise that our idea was to give the subject an airing, not to push the Amendment to a Division. In my view, no decision will be reached by the medical profession, even if the matter is left for five years. In the end, it will be a matter for us to decide.
Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25

PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES

Mr. Michael Havers: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 20, line 23, leave out subsection (4).
This may sound like a technical point, but it is not. The subsection requires the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before the police or the magistrates can commit for trial any person charged with an offence under this legislation. As the number of offences increases annually, so it will be more unlikely that the Director can investigate every one.
One also gets the case coming before magistrates which appears to be of a minor character but which, in the course of investigations, turns out to be much more serious. The magistrates can either deal with it summarily, which they would


prefer not to do, or they are in the embarrassing position of requiring an adjournment so that the Director can be consulted to see whether he advises that this case should be properly committed for trial. The Director is always there if the police require his advice.
This provision crept into the Dangerous Drugs and Poisons (Amendment) Act, 1923—no such provision was required in the 1920 Dangerous Drugs Act—and had practically no discussion in the House. There are five or six lines in HANSARD dealing with this, when the Home Secretary moved a provision requiring the consent of the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It seems an out-of-date and unnecessary restriction of the powers of the police and the courts. It provides no safeguard which would not exist for any accused. Without this provision, the accused would simply be sent to quarter sessions or assizes and dealt with in exactly the same way as if he had committed any other offence.

Mr. Crowder: I should like wholeheartedly to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Havers). This is an antediluvian matter which should be removed from the Bill.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I also support the Amendment. The wheels grind slowly enough as it is in criminal matters, more so in London perhaps than elsewhere. The House debated this matter not so long ago. I was looking only the other day at a case involving drugs in which the period between committal and trial was no less than 10 months. That is by no means unusual these days. If this burden is to be put on the Director of Public Prosecutions in the vast number of cases which are likely to be committed, this will be a very serious situation, and a grave injustice to people awaiting trial. For that reason I strongly support the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The point of the Amendment is obviously something for the House to consider, if only because it seems to have been looked at, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Havers) said, somewhat cursorily in 1923. He said that it had crept in. At this distance of time I do not know whether it

crept, slunk or stalked its way on to the Statute Book, but the form that it then took, the form in which it has been since 1965, requires that the proceedings should be instituted by or with the consent of the Attorney-General or by the Director of Public Prosecutions, so in the form existing before the Bill, it was both more restrictive and, if I may say so on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, more burdensome because it required his intervention in some cases as well.
The effect of the substitute version in the Bill is to make it less restrictive and burdensome. There is no longer any need for the Attorney-General's consent or for the Director of Public Prosecutions to conduct the committal proceedings. It seems to the Government that a movement in that direction, a reversal of the 1923 "creep" represents a reasonable movement.
12.45 a.m.
In view of the high penalties which the Bill provides for the major offences, it makes sense to preserve the requirement for the Director's consent to committal. It is on that basis that the truncated, emaciated version of the 1923 provision survives in the Bill. It has been criticised in modest and gentle tones by those who have spoken. No one save myself has leaped enthusiastically to its defence.
In view of the points which have been raised by those who have spoken, plainly it is a point which the Government are prepared to look at again, but I cannot give any undertaking about it. There is this residual need for some control on committal in the serious case which might not survive if this provision were to disappear altogether.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon will recognise that the tide of 1923 has turned in 1970. It may not yet have gone out the whole distance. In these circumstances, I hope that he will feel disposed to withdraw the Amendment, upon the undertaking that the matter will certainly be looked at in the light of what hon. Members have said.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Perhaps I am in some way estopped from raising the point, because this provision was in the original Bill as introduced during the term of the


previous Administration, but I have been greatly impressed by what has been said by those who have objected to this provision. I was not wholly impressed by the argument which was advanced by the Solicitor-General, because there does not seem to be any public interest which needs protecting beyond that which arises from the fact that some serious penalties can be imposed under the Bill. The Solicitor-General will surely agree that the maximum penalties under the Bill compare broadly with the maximum penalties under the Theft Act, for example, and no such provision as this is to be found in that Act. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Solicitor-General would consider whether it is necessary for this rather cumbersome machinery to remain.

The Solicitor-General: I hope that the statement that I have made that the Government will look at this matter will meet the point. It is not now as cumbersome as it was. It is a very modest cumbrosity, if there is such a word. It is less cumbrous than the provision in the Bill which the hon. Gentleman himself, as he rightly acknowledged, brought before the House, but the matter will certainly be looked at.

Mr. Havers: In view of the assurance which has been given, I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34

AMENDMENT OF MATRIMONIAL PROCEED INGS (MAGISTRATES' COURTS) ACT 1960

Mr. Goodhart: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 25, line 9, at end add:
'listed in schedule 2, part 1, Class A'.
The Clause amends Section 16(1) of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act, 1960, and broadens the definition of "drug addict" to cover, not only heroin and cocaine users, but also those using amphetamines and barbiturate combinations.
It is doubtful whether the implications of widening these grounds for granting a separation order have been fully con-

sidered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Matrimonial proceedings under Section 16(1) can now be brought against a very large number of men and women and the issue involved is extended well beyond the issues originally contained in Section 16(1), when it was necessary for a person to obtain in relation to his spouse, proof of danger to himself or to others, incapacity to manage himself or his own affairs, or proof of conduct intolerable to a spouse of ordinary sensibilities.
It has been argued by a number of magistrates with wide experience of domestic proceedings that the Clause could lead to some unfortunate wives or husbands being attacked and pilloried in the courts on the grounds of a relatively minor use of comparatively harmless drugs, just at the moment when they need particular support. The Amendment would largely restore the balance to what it has been from 1960 onwards.

Mr. Ogden: If I am ignorant or because of the late hour unable to comprehend quite what is happening, I apologise to the House in advance.
As I understand it, the Clause says:
There shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament—
(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State "—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The hon. Gentleman is quoting from Clause 35. I think that there is a mistake in one series of Amendment Papers today, and it may be that this is referred to in the earlier edition.

Mr. Ogden: That may well be the reason, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why I was at a loss to understand what a list of drugs under Part I, Class A, had to do with matrimonial proceedings, in relation to moneys provided by Parliament to defray expenses incurred by the Secretary of State.
Perhaps after this exchange it may be possible for that to be cleared up.

Mr. Alison: I am very relieved that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) is not so fatigued that he has made a mistake, and that the error lies elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) has moved


an Amendment the effect of which would be to limit the bite of this part of the Bill to the same degree of severity as was imparted to the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act, 1960, by the qualifying list of drugs in the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1951, which was originally the controlling instrument for drugs for the 1960 Act.
I do not think that my hon. Friend has quite made his case, though I have weighed very carefully what he said. I think that he would agree that the spirit of the 1960 Act requires that the class of drugs should be as wide as possible, provided that all drugs comprised in it are sufficiently harmful to be controlled by law. It was the underlying philosophy of the 1951 Act that those drugs cited were those considered dangerous enough to be controlled by law.
If my hon. Friend applies that same governing philosophy and spirit to the present circumstances I think that he will agree that the drugs in Classes B and C in the later parts of the Schedule, which I think he designated as comparatively harmless, are considered by the House to be sufficiently dangerous to be included in a Measure which proposes to control them by law. If this really is the case, I think it is extremely unsatisfactory that the wife should be denied matrimonial relief even though her husband is both dangerous to himself and to others or impossible to live with. This may well be the reality if the drugs involved are what we consider to be harmful and dangerous because they happen to be in Classes B and C instead of Class A. This would be unsatisfactory, Parliament having decided that they were dangerous drugs and not harmful drugs.
I think that my hon. Friend would agree that it is essentially the effect of the drug and not its narrow classification which must be the deciding factor, and I believe that the drugs listed in Classes B and C are really harmful; it is for that reason that they have been included. If we maintain the philosophy of the 1951 Act on drugs sufficiently dangerous to be specified in a Statute, we must allow the 1960 Act to be governed by all those that Parliament has taken the trouble to specify and list in the Schedule.
I hope that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will be prepared to allow us to proceed on this assessment of what con-

stitutes dangerous drugs and to include Classes B and C and not only Class A.

Mr. Goodhart: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 10 in page 26, line 13 at end insert:
' "person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business", subject to subsection (5) below, means a person lawfully conducting such a business in accordance with section 69 of the Medicines Act 1968;'.

No. 11 in line 14, leave out:
'(except in the expression "retail pharmacist")'.

No. 13, in page 26, leave out lines 29 to 32.

No. 14, in page 27, line 10, leave out 'retail pharmacist' and insert:
'person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business'.

No. 15, in line 12, leave out 'retail pharmacist' and insert:
'person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business'.

No. 16, in line 18, leave out ' retail pharmacist' and insert:
'person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business'.

No. 17, in line 20, leave out 'retail pharmacist' and insert:
'person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business '.—[Mr. Ogden.]

Schedule 1

CONSTITUTION ETC. OF ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE MISUSE OF DRUGS

Amendments made: No. 18, in page 29, line 6 leave out "Ministers" and insert "Secretary of State".

No. 19, in line 7 leave out "they consider" and insert "he considers".—[Mr. Sharples.]

Mr. Ogden: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 29, line 10, leave out "one person" and insert "two persons".
This is a short, practical and, I hope, helpful Amendment which, I also hope,


will commend itself at least to a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Schedule 1 provides for, in the main, the composition, responsibilities and effective working of the Advisory Council. Paragraph 1(2) sets out the number of representatives of different professions whom the Minister thinks it right to include as the main part of the Council. The Schedule states that the Council shall consist of a minimum of 20 members and the Minister proposes that six of the members shall represent

"(a) the practice of medicine (other than veterinary medicine);
(b) the practice of dentistry;
(c) the practice of veterinary medicine;
(d) the practice of pharmacy;
(e) the pharmaceutical industry;
(f) chemistry other than pharmaceutical chemistry."

This is a total of six out of what will be the minimum number of 20.
I suggest that this proposition represents an imbalance. I would prefer to see a greater professional bias on the Council. The professional representatives will not be responsible only for their individual professions; they will not be delegates but representatives. I believe, therefore, that the proportions should be the other way round. If there is to be an Advisory Council of 20 members, it might be better if 12 were to represent the professions and eight the profession of social workers. I do not like to make this distinction between the professional workers and the social workers, but the Council would be the more able to bring the necessary knowledge to this advisory body if we doubled the number of persons representing each of those sections the Minister lists and then added to them the other equally important representatives from social work.
If the Minister wished to continue the same balance, he could increase the total size of the council to 25 or more, although it would then be getting a little large. However, because of the greater amount of expert advice which would then be available, the composition of the council could be slightly altered to put greater emphasis on the professional representation.

1.0 a.m.

Dr. Stuttaford: In some of these categories it will be important for two people to be appointed so that there may always be one present, but to have two from each of the categories mentioned would not be necessary and would upset the balance of the Advisory Council.
It is vain to hope that the representatives from these bodies will not be delegates, for that is almost inevitable and with a council of this sort, with this sort of professional knowledge, the representatives will be almost certain to push the views of their professions. However, I agree that there must always be one representative from each of the categories, and that may mean appointing two from each.

Mr. Sharples: In Standing Committee we had a considerable discussion about the composition of the Advisory Council and we listened to the representations on behalf of the various bodies. I said then that I thought that the Council should be a broadly balanced grouping of medical, scientific and lay experts, and this was the assurance given to the B.M.A. There is to be a minimum of 20 members, but it will be perfectly possible for my right hon. Friend, if he feels it to be necessary, to appoint additional members.
In those appointments we shall want to gain from experience and to be able to treat the membership of the Council with some flexibility. I hope that that assurance will be satisfactory to the hon-Member and that he will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Ogden: On the basis of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Amendments made: Amendment No. 21, in page 29, line 10, leave out 'Ministers' and insert 'Secretary of State'.

No. 22, in line 12, leave out 'Ministers' and insert 'Secretary of State'.

No. 23, in line 22, leave out 'Ministers' and insert 'Secretary of State'.

No. 24, in line 32, leave out 'the Ministers' and insert 'him'.

No 25, in line 35, leave out 'Ministers' and insert 'Secretary of State'.—[Mr. Sharples.]

Schedule 2

CONTROLLED DRUGS

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move Amendment No. 26 in page 31, line 18, at end insert 'barbiturates'.
I move the Amendment only in order to get a further statement from the Minister, as he offered when we discussed this matter in Committee.
Earlier, the House was greatly concerned with the whole problem of barbiturates and the fact that they were not included in the Bill, for the sound and proper reason that the matter was being invesigated by the Advisory Council. In Committee the Minister gave us the Council's interim report and made it clear that he thought it unlikely that an Amendment would be made in this connection, because there would have to be considerable consultation with the medical profession and others before any decision could be made.
I merely take this opportunity to ask him if he can say whether any discussions have yet been set on foot, what the progress is likely to be, and whether his view is still as it was when he said during the Committee stage that it was unlikely that the Bill would be amended in another place in order to take account of this point. He may think that fairly lengthy consultations would be required, and I should merely like to ask him what the situation is.

Mr. Raison: I appreciate that the object of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) is, as it were, to probe on the subject of barbiturates, but I should be very worried at this stage if there were any serious thought of adding barbiturates to the list. If these drugs were not prescribed, the effect would be that they would become illegal and anyone possessing them would be liable to heavy sentences; up to 12 months or £400 on summary conviction, and seven years or a fine on indictment. But I accept that we are not expecting this to be added to the list at the moment.
We know that barbiturates are used in a horrible way, and that a small number of people are abusing them in a way which is bound to be terrifying. On the other hand, there is a point which we

have to bear in mind. Barbiturates are accepted by the medical profession as a necessary drug, and there is a risk that at times, in our determination to stamp out misuse or abuse by a very small number of people, we may make life pretty difficult for the very large number of people who use those drugs perfectly legitimately. Many people get a great deal of relief from them, and I hope that we shall not find it necessary to bring them into the penal arena. It would be ridiculous if a wife gave her husband a barbiturate pill and was thereby committing what is, on the face of it, a fairly serious offence.
So let us remember that there is a good side to these drugs as well as a bad side, and let us not try to rush in to legislate when we do not have to. Finally, let us remember that, once again, the essence of what has to be done lies with the medical profession; that it is up to them in their prescribing practice to cope with this problem. Undoubtedly, there has been over-prescribing, and there is a great need for doctors not to over-prescribe. In that way they can do a great deal to restrict this problem.

Mr. Sharples: The few words uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) have illustrated some of the difficulties of this problem, and one of the reasons for not reaching over-hasty decisions on what is a very major subject indeed. As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), I am afraid that at this stage I can add very little to what I said in Standing Committee. At that time I made a fairly full statement, both about the letter which was addressed to Ministers, and also about the Government's immediate reaction to it.
I can tell the House that interdepartmental consideration of the letter is proceeding at the present time, and it is hoped to initiate discussions shortly with medical and other outside interests. I very much doubt that any decision will be reached before this Bill has completed all its stages in both places. If a decision were made to bring barbiturates within the scope of the Bill, it would be perfectly possible to do so by Order under Clause 2(2) of the Bill.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of that statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of Crown, signified]

1.10 a.m.

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank all hon. Members for the helpful way in which the Bill has been considered. Every suggestion has been put forward in a constructive spirit. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), who did a great deal of the initial work on this Bill when it was originally presented to the House. I am sure that the House would wish to express appreciation for the considerable support and assistance given in the development of the Bill by the medical profession, the industry, the Pharmaceutical Society, the Magistrates' Association and others.
We have been realistic in our discussions about the possibilities in the Bill and the limitations inherent in the law. It has been the concern of us all to make as good a base as possible for social as well as penal provisions, for community measures and a wider effort by all the organisations and services with a part to play. This modest objective has been largely secured.
We must not forget that the Bill is before Parliament at a time when we may not have seen anything like the worst of this social problem. The flexibility of the Bill, the margins in penalties, the extended powers for regulations, are all a measure of insurance against a problem the full extent of which we do not yet know. I pay tribute to the help which this Government and the previous one received from the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence and express our gratitude to Sir Edward Wayne and his colleagues for the useful Report which they produced. Their thorough probing into contemporary problems and their balanced conclusions have shown clearly how much we can expect to gain from the Committee, whose activities will hold the key to the success of the new legislation.
I have tried to deal, with the help of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, with the various points raised but I appreciate that there are certain points with which we have not yet dealt. There is the point raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) about Clause 17 and his suggestion that the provisions in the Clause should be extended to manufacturers and wholesalers. As he knows, there are difficulties about this, but we have not lost hope of being able to bring forward a proposal to meet his point later.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) asked whether we had made a sensible classification of cannabis and its active principles. This is a very complex question to which we need to give further thought. Fortunately, the Bill allows for changes in the Schedule should this seem right.
Turning to barbiturates, as I have said I do not think that it will be possible to reach a final decision before the Bill becomes law. I want to leave no doubt in the minds of hon. Members about the Government's attitude to two points. First we want the Advisory Committee to be a properly balanced and effective group of professional and lay experts. We shall bear in mind all the suggestions that have been made about the kinds of expertise to be included. We intend to see that the Committee receives every support from the Department.
Second, the Government are entirely committed to exercising the powers provided by the Bill in the fullest consultation with all the interests affected. I know from our debates that this is a matter of keen concern to the medical profession and other organisations whose interests can be vitally affected. I assure the House that we recognise that there can be no effective exploitation of the Bill without their advice and co-operation. This means that, in the interests of us all, there should be continuing and full consultation.
I hope that what I have said at this stage of the Bill's progress will be a reassurance to those who are directly concerned, and I have much pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.

1.16 a.m.

Mr. Ogden: Hon. Members will have noted that both today and for several days


past there has appeared on the Order Paper the Motion,
On Third Reading of the Misuse of Drugs Bill … That the Question be not put forthwith ".
This was not just a device to ensure that hon. and right hon. Members opposite had to stay at the House until some ungodly hour of the morning to make certain that we on this side did not get up to mischief. It was a precaution in case there might still be important things to be done or said at this stage.
May I take this opportunity, speaking from the back benches on this side, to say how much the whole House has appreciated the presence during the greater part of our proceedings after ten o'clock—indeed, until a few moments ago—of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). The Bill will give the Home Secretary tremendous powers and great responsibilities. I think it right to say that we are glad that he has been able to come along. I offered him an invitation in Committee on 5th November, and on 9th December he has accepted it. So that is fair enough.
A few minutes ago, outside the Chamber, I told the right hon. Gentleman that he had been very well served by the Minister of State at the Home Office and by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. I hope that that does not cause them any embarrassment, coming from this side. On Second Reading, in Committee, and in today's proceedings, they have been extremely helpful, co-operative and informative. On occasion, perhaps, they have known a little more than we might have wanted them to know, because they were able to defeat some of our suggestions.
At what, I feel, has been an unhappy time in Parliament, when there have been deep party-political divisions, our work on this Bill, both in Committee and in the House, has brought together people from many walks of life and professions, all using their endeavours for the common good. The Bill will not solve all the problems of misuse of drugs overnight, but it will do some good. It will lessen present dangers, and it will lessen future dangers. It is a good Bill, and I wish it good health and good fortune in its further progress.

1.18 a.m.

Mr. Deedes: We have done our work on the Bill expeditiously, and, in some ways, I think it rather hard that we should be required to take the concluding stages at this hour of the morning. We are engaged on a valuable and important debate, and I think that it might have been more profitably held at some other time of day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That protest being made, however—I hope that it has support on the other side of the House as well as on this—the sooner we send the Bill to its next stage, the better.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State was wise to say that there remain matters with which we have not been able to deal. There remain areas of doubt. Each of us has his own areas of doubt. There is the question of compulsion. There is the question of education, about which I feel strongly. There is the question of the social programmes. In parenthesis, may I say that I think one weakness remaining is that we have not got the social involvement which some of us hoped that a new Measure would produce. There is the question of the barbiturates, and, finally, there is the question of the future of the Council. I still think that the Council will be landed with more work than, perhaps, my hon. Friend realises. I hope that he finds a team willing to undertake it.
In mentioning the subject of education, I think it appropriate to pay a tribute to the Women's Royal Voluntary Service. In a room upstairs yesterday, some of us were able to hear Stella Lady Reading and her allies present the lady who, I understand, is to speak with 40 colleagues in the primary schools. One hundred and fifty of these ladies will be available from Easter onwards. This voluntary movement has supplied a need about which we were extremely critical in Committee—I make no remarks about the Department of Education and Science. These women have stepped in and are doing an urgently needed job. We might pay a passing tribute to them. It would be silly to expect too much of the Bill; it cannot cover every contingency.
Finally, I will mention—at this hour briefly and tactfully, which was not any original intention—one anxiety which remains in my mind about what the Bill


may or may not cover. Will my hon. Friend bear closely in mind the problem of the slimming clinic, a subject which has not been raised before? I ask him to be watchful; I will not spell out the details. There are a number of these fashionable establishments attracting a wide range of clientele, including young people, who want to lose weight—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The right hon. Gentleman is straying a little wide. The Third Reading of the Bill is very tight.

Mr. Deedes: I will be very careful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Slimming involves the use of amphetamines, and with amphetamines all sorts of funny things can happen. The Bill refers to gross over-prescribing, which we are endeavouring to prevent, particularly of amphetamines and barbiturates. It is with that in mind—and particularly the gross over-prescribing of amphetamines—that I ask my hon. Friend to bear very closely in mind what I say. There are profits to be made here, and possible perils for the future. I say no more than that. Whether or not the Bill bites here—and I hope it does—my hon. Friend has cause to be vigilant.
I wish to thank my hon. Friend very warmly for the way in which he has met in a very good spirit a number of suggestions and criticisms we have made. I hope that the Bill, since it has now had a second round, will soon find its way on to the Statute Book.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I hesitate to become contentious at this hour, and I will keep my remarks as brief as possible, but I have always been concerned that the main purpose of the Bill is to increase the penal sanctions, which I do not think is the answer. The experience that we can glean from the United States is that, although increased penalties have been imposed in a number of States, this has not had the desired effect of abating drug addiction and drug abuse.
As a corollary to the Bill the Government must undertake an intensive research programme. They must undertake a programme of drug education so that authentic information can be brought to the ears of young people, who are particularly vulnerable. That means that the Government must produce substantial

financial aid. If they do not do so, the whole purpose of the Bill and its more positive aspects will be defeated.
As I said in Committee—and the Minister supported this view—the courts must keep fully apprised of changing knowledge about drugs, and this particularly applies to magistrates, many of whom are not aware of all the aspects of this problem. It is essential that they should be fully aware of the changing scene. This applies equally to the higher courts. The Minister said that every possible assistance would be given to the judiciary on this aspect, and I am especially grateful to him for that.
Although the Minister did not agree with me on certain matters, and particularly on search and arrest, I thank him for the courteous way in which he dealt with the long and useful debate on that subject. Many of us are concerned that there may be an invasion of civil liberties. This is an emotive issue, on which we tend to lose sight of individual liberties.
I can only hope that my fears will be proved to be groundless. I hope that the Minister will be proved to be right about that but, as I have indicated before, I have grave doubts about it and I see no reason for withdrawing my remarks about that now. Having said that and having been a little contentious, at twenty-five minutes past one I had better sit down.

1.25 a.m.

Mr. Crowder: I hope to detain the House for only a short time. In particular, I am delighted to see my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General with us. In speaking on Third Reading, I hope that I shall not be out of order if I say that the liberty of the subject, which has been referred to from the Government Front Bench, runs the whole way through the Bill and, in particular, is epitomised in Clause 28(2). I do not know how many hon. Members have the Bill before them, but this is important concerning the criminal law, because it affects it and, indeed, it affects the liberty of the subject.
Clause 28(2) states:
'"Subject to subsection (3) below, in any proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he neither knew of nor suspected nor had reason to suspect the existence of some fact alleged by the prosecution which it is


necessary for the prosecution to prove if he is to be convicted of the offence charged.
The words which worry me are "had reason to suspect".
Does that mean that a person can, in effect, be convicted of negligence? Suppose that a mini-skirted hippy comes into a house with a long cigarette holder. Is that to be held in law to be a "reason to suspect", which really means a reason to inquire? I concede at once that, on the next page of the Bill, subsection (3)(b) of Clause 28 states that the accused
shall be acquitted thereof … if he proves that he neither believed nor suspected nor had reason to suspect".
—we find those words again—
that the substance or product in question was a controlled drug ".
I raise the matter for this reason. Many hon. Members will probably know of a leading and interesting case in this matter, Warner v. Metropolitan Police Commissioners, reported in 1969 Appeal Cases, Volume 2, at page 256. If the House will forgive me for another two minutes, I should like to explain that the appellant was charged with having drugs in his possession without being duly authorised. There was evidence that a police officer had stopped the appellant, who was driving a van, in the back of which were found three cases, one of which contained scent bottles, and a plastic bag containing a certain amount of drugs. The appellant had been to a cafe, where he was accustomed to collect scent from a Mr. B. He was told by the proprietor that a parcel from B was under the counter and had found two parcels there, namely, the one containing scent and the other which was found to contain drugs. He said that he had assumed that both contained scent.
On the question of possession, the chairman directed the jury that if he had control of the box which turned out to be full of drugs, the offence was committed and it was only mitigation that he did not know the contents. It was held and found by the House of Lords that he was guilty of the offence because it was absolute. I do not know what hon. Members on both sides think, but obviously that situation must be remedied, because the whole essence of the criminal law is surely that a man must have a guilty mind.
Looking closely at Clause 28, it seems that not only is the onus of proof being placed on a defendant in an issue which could have the gravest consequences, but it is putting him in the position that if he is civilly negligent he would or could of necessity, in law, be found guilty of a criminal offence.
I think that the Bar Council has made strong representations to the Government about Clause 28(2), the effect of which seems to be that a defendant who proves that he neither knew nor suspected that he was in possession of prohibited drugs can face imprisonment for up to 10 years unless he also proves that he did not have reason to suspect.
I realise that these are legalistic matters and that it is a question whether or not negligence can be found, but I put this point to the Solicitor-General. Supposing that a man is found guilty under Clause 28, how is the judge to know, unless he asks for a special verdict, which has been frowned upon time and again by the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, whether the jury either took the view that the man should have known or knew perfectly well that it was merely a matter of inadvertence or negligence on his part?
I had hoped that the injustice of the case which I quoted would be met by the Bill. I ask the Government to have another look at that point.

1.32 a.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am glad that the Minister, in inviting us to give the Bill a Third Reading, made modest claims for it. The hon. Gentleman was right to do so. It would be highly dangerous to think that there was an answer to the drug problem by means of this kind. This may be necessary—indeed, I am sure that it is—but it does not solve the problem, which, as we all know, is largely of a social and welfare nature, and to which we must devote most of our attention.
I want to take this opportunity to comment upon three areas about which some of us are still very much concerned. The first concerns a matter not now in the Bill. Some hon. Members are still doubtful whether it was wise to drop the expert committee for which provision was made in earlier legislation. No doubt we shall learn from experience, but some hon. Members are not fully satisfied that


the job which is being given to the new Advisory Council can adequately be covered by that body as it is to be constituted. However, we shall see.
Secondly, some hon. Members still have severe reservations about the provision for search and arrest. Some of us voted on it in Committee, and we still retain our dislike of the provision as it stands. We fear that it may help to maintain suspicion between young people and the police, amongst other matters. We hope not, but we fear that this may be so. We shall certainly want to see how this works in practice and to know a good deal about its operation.
Thirdly, I am still unhappy about some of the penalties provided for the possession and use of cannabis, in particular, and the possibility which still remains—I put it no stronger—that a first offender found with a small amount of cannabis in his or her possession can be committed to prison. Although the Minister properly called our attention in Committee to the way in which the attitude of the courts had changed in recent years, and we all welcome that, nevertheless the possibility remains, and it must be still a matter of continuing anxiety, while accepting that courts need to have freedom of action about the particular circumstances of the individual case.
Against that there is no doubt that the Bill provides a more flexible approach to the whole issue, and this we welcome very much indeed, because there is only one thing that is certain about this whole question of drugs, and it is that it is continuously changing and that what one says about the problem one week may prove to be inaccurate the next. It is with that kind of humility that we need to aproach the whole subject, and this emphasises the vital necessity of further continuing research and further realisation that in the end the answers come from our social work rather than from any penal action that we may take.

1.36 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: I want to tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that I am not winding up this short debate on the Third Reading and that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will do that.

I intervene only to reply to the important point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder), bearing on Clause 28, but I do not want to do so in more detail than is proper at this stage.
There is certainly no need for any hon. Member, at any hour of the day or night, to apologise for raising a point of this kind which bears on the liberty of the subject. It is right that it should be raised, and it is also right, so that the matter may be considered in another place if necessary, that I should say something by way of comment on what my hon and learned Friend said.
The position is that under the previous legislation, which was considered in another place in the case to which my hon. and learned Friend referred, it was an absolute offence to be in possession of drugs of this kind and, indeed, to deal with them in other ways. It was recognised at the time of those cases, and subsequently, that this went further in principle than was desirable. The matter was referred by the previous Government to the Law Commission for consideration, and the formulation which appears in the Bill is that approved and recommended by the Law Commission. The House has great respect for the Law Commission, but the Law Commission would not claim to usurp the functions of Parliament and it is right, therefore, that the House should consider the matter.
The view taken was that although it would be wrong to maintain an absolute offence, to put the burden of proving guilty knowledge in respect of all these offences on the prosecution would be to put too high a burden on it in respect of matters which are a cause of such concern and which need stringent measures to control and regulate them.
A middle position has been arrived at. Under Clause 8, for example, which is being knowingly concerned with the management of premises, it is for the prosecution to establish that the person accused was knowingly concerned, so that in the example given by my hon. and learned Friend of the mini-skirted hippy entering premises it probably would not be sufficient to establish knowledge, unless there were other, more remarkable, features about the young lady. In the other cases dealt with in Clause 28, it


does not seem unreasonable to put the matter in this way; that, primarily, possession is an offence, but the accused has the means of establishing his defence.
When I looked at the provision and saw that it was necessary for the defendant to show
that he neither knew nor suspected nor had any reason to suspect
it seemed to me that three cumulative offences were being piled on each other in what might strike the House as a novel fashion. However, if one looks at the speech of Lord Reid in the case to which attention has been drawn, one finds that this is, in fact, the formulation which he and, in a different sense Lord Pearce advanced. Lord Reid said:
In a case like this Parliament, if consulted, might think it right to transfer the onus of proof so that an accused would have to prove that he neither knew nor had any reason to suspect that he had a prohibited drug in his possession; I am unable to find sufficient grounds for imputing to Parliament an intention to deprive the accused of all rights to show that he had no knowledge or reason to suspect that any prohibited drug was on his premises or in a container which was in his possession.
So the test here suggested—of knowledge, suspicion or reason to suspect—is one that has been suggested in another place in the previous consideration of this point. It is not a wholly unfamiliar test. There are other statutory provisions, one at least in the Sexual Offences Act, where when a person is charged with having sexual intercourse with a mentally defective, this test arises.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the result of Clause 28 is to make confusion confounded? I have in mind, in particular, the situation in which judges will find themselves in trying to sum up complicated cases of this kind to a jury.

The Solicitor-General: I would not have thought so. It was clear that the summing up in the case which went to the House of Lords was defective because there was then no kind of definition of what had to be established, and their lordships expressed a test close to this one. But it had to be found by judge and by law—at this hour it would be disrespectful to say by guess and by God—and they were bringing Parliament's

attention to bear on the subject. It should not, I submit, be difficult for this test to be presented to a jury in an understandable way.
One might think that one could dispense with one or other part of the test, but in the end the House may think that a reasonable attempt has been made, following the advice of the Law Commission, to make the law plain in a way consistent with the policy underlying the legislation. I hope that my explanation is sufficiently clear for the matter to be looked at in another place when the Bill reaches that stage.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does it mean that the categories covered are really these: the case of the person who had actual knowledge, the case of the person who had a high degree of suspicion, and the case of the person who had neither suspicion nor knowledge but who received the substance in, say, rather suspicious circumstances and who deliberately looked the other way so that there would be no question of his getting that knowledge?

The Solicitor-General: That is one of the situations. It is important—again, the House will be familiar with it in other cases—where somebody turns a blind eye to a guilt-imputing fact. That is not held to be sufficient when knowledge is part of the offence; and this provision makes it necessary for the accused to show that he had no reason to suspect. In other words, it would catch a man who turned a blind eye in the example which was given of the mini-skirted girl.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I think that my hon. and learned Friend has covered the point that I intended to put to him. But he did not make clear whether the Government intended this part of the Bill to cover categories normally regarded as civil negligence. Do the Government envisage a situation in which mere negligence or want of reasonable care on the part of someone to make inquiries of a suspicious character could render him liable to criminal penalties? If that situation is envisaged, would it not be preferable to make it a different category of offence, so that a separate verdict could be reached on it and a separate penalty imposed?

The Solicitor-General: It is not intended to catch a merely negligent person. The intention would be to start by showing possession or production of the drug in question. If the person were not able to repel the reasonable suspicion that he knew what it was, I would not have thought that one could equate that with negligence. It is introducing the concept of a guilty mind.
The additional point that there are two possible categories of offence, namely the negligent possessor and the knowing, reckless, wilful possessor, raises a different question. I am unable to say whether the possibility of separating the offences in that way has been considered. There are other statutory provisions in which the difference between being in possession and being knowingly in possession is clearly brought out. It is in some parts of this Bill. But it would be difficult to go very much further, in the framework of the policy of this legislation, either in subdividing or extending the range of offence.
Again, the point is well raised, and no doubt it can be looked at 'twixt here and another place. I hesitate to go further in interpreting the intention of the legislation.

1.48 a.m.

Mr. Carol Mather: I wish briefly to raise two matters. The first concerns films. During a recent visit to the United States, I saw some horrifying films which encourage drug taking. They were pornographic, certainly. At the same time, they encourage drug taking in that they show, in Technicolor and in close-up, the act of intravenous injection, which prompts some people to experiment. Does Clause 1 empower the Government to prevent this kind of film coming into the country? Can we impose a ban on such films?
My second point concerns university premises. Does Clause 8 make the position clear? The Select Committee which examined student relations said of university premises that the general position is that the police have no right to enter university or college premises unless invited by the lawful occupier or where the officers have reasonable grounds for suspecting persons on such premises of having committed or being about to commit an arrestable offence. If the police are not invited by university authorities, how do they know that this kind of

activity is taking place, or even suspect it if they have no access to the premises?

1.50 a.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am grateful to the Minister of State for his generous remarks. As one who has spoken on two Second Readings of this Bill and who had the pleasure of having 1¾ runs over it in Committee, it would ill behove me at this early hour to speak at any great length. But, due to my early associations with the Bill, I was afflicted by the neurosis, after a change of Administration, of flying to the defence of every comma and syllable. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) was right, that there was some similarity between the clichés used by Ministers and those which I myself used in support of their aguments.
This Bill will not cure society from the maladies which stem from drugs, but it will enable us in some cases to contain them and in others perhaps to eliminate some of them. I believe that the Bill was greatly improved in a working committee, which had a splendid spirit of co-operation. I pay the highest tribute to the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State for their co-operation and chivalry. I am sure that the House is impressed by the thought and industry which they have dedicated to the Bill. We wish it well and hope that it will have an easy and speedy passage through its further stages in another place.

1.52 a.m.

Mr. Alison: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) for the notes of bipartisan harmony which he sounded. I am almost tempted to remind him of the story of the two Welsh solicitors in the country town, but as I first heard it from him, I will not develop it: he gets the point.
I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) for making such a short and succinct speech after such a long wait. On the point he raised, I understand that university premises are covered by Clauses 8 and 23, under which entry may be gained but obviously by warrant. We also believe that his point about films is covered, by Clause 19(2), under which incitement to drug taking is a specified offence.
I am struck by the balance in the arguments for and against that we have heard. Misgivings were expressed whether we were imparting too great a penal flavour to the Bill, although the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) conceded that the Bill contained the flexibility which his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr Clinton Davis) regarded as vital to keep abreast of changing developments in the drug scene.
I think that the Bill has the necessary flexibility. As to whether it has too penal a tone, I cannot help reflecting on the significance of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). He cited a particular kind of hazard with which society is now faced, namely, these notorious obesity clinics. He did so very moderately. He knows my own deep concern about this subject and my sympathy with him for raising it. It shows the extent to which we have to impart this penal flavour to the Bill that my right hon. Friend should be so specifically concerned that obesity clinics might, even so, slip through some loophole. If this were the case, it would be very unsatisfactory.
I am hopeful and confident that obesity clinics of the kind that my right hon. Friend cited and those who practice in them will be susceptible to the penal flavour of the Bill, particularly Clause 13. It might well be the very essence of the concluding speeches on the Bill that we should remind the House that Clause 13 introduces a novel power to deal with those who administer or supply
controlled drugs in an irresponsible manner".
As my right hon. Friend knows, doctors who are involved in irresponsible prescribing can be referred to the tribunal for which the Bill makes provision. If the tribunal agrees, the Home Secretary can issue directions prohibiting such practitioners from prescribing, administering or supplying the relevant drugs—amphetamines or others. The refusal to obey such a direction is itself an offence under the Bill.
In addition, Clause 15 provides for more rapid machinery under which, subject to the agreement of a professional panel, the Secretary of State may give an interim direction temporarily prohibi-

ting the provision of such specified drugs, again pending the tribunal's consideration.
The only qualification to which I would admit in my complete confidence that the Bill as drafted meets the case of the obesity clinic and other such marginal cases is that it is not possible to predict how a tribunal or panel will reach its conclusion—how the cat will jump. I regret that that is inherent in the type of provision we are making. This introduces the necessary degree of flexibility.
The best way of coping with this situation probably lies in our giving as rapid a Third Reading to the Bill as possible and getting it through another place and on to the Statute Book as soon as possible. However, there is bound to be some delay. If people have evidence that obesity clinics, even now under the existing state of the law, cause demonstrable hurt and harm to citizens old or young, I hope that they will come forward and present themselves to those who are in a position to take action, not least my right hon. Friend, with his considerable experience and well-known position. If such people come forward, and if we can demonstrate hurt or harm, I have no doubt that it will be possible under the law as it stands and under the facilities which the General Medical Council has to take early action; and we ought to warn those who are engaged in this type of practice that we have eagle eyes in this respect and are only waiting for an opportunity to be advised and informed about cases, such as those to which my right hon. Friend has referred, of hurt and harm.
On that note, I hope that, with the obvious need to get the penal provisions of this important Bill on to the Statute Book as soon as possible, it can be accorded a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

OVERSEAS AID

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the evidence taken before the Select Committees on Overseas Aid in the last Parliament and to report thereon; and the Committee was nominated of Mr. A. Blenkinsop, Sir


Frederic Bennett, Mr. B. Braine, Mr. P. Good-hart, Mr. F. Judd, Mr. E. King, Mr. A. Lyon, Mr. L. Pavitt, Sir George Sinclair and Mr. J. Tilney.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with technical knowledge either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.

Ordered,
That the memoranda laid before the Select Committee on Overseas Aid in Session 1968–69 in the last Parliament be referred to the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committees on Overseas Aid in Session 1968–69 and 1969–70 in the last Parliament be referred to the Committee.

Ordered,
That Four be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

NANTYGLO AND BLAINA HOSPITAL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

1.58 a.m.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: I am grateful for this opportunity of bringing to the attention of the House the decision of the Welsh Regional Hospital Board, a decision somewhat surprisingly concurred in at present by the Secretary of State for Wales, to close the maternity unit at Nantyglo and Blaina Hospital in my constituency. I raise this matter in the real hope that common sense will yet prevail and that this piece of planning tomfoolery will be set aside.
It would be difficult to spell out adequately the bitter resentment that this decision has caused in all sections of the community, a community which this excellent unit has served so admirably since it was opened in 1932 by the Queen Mother when she was the Duchess of York. This sense of grievance is not confined to one part of the community but is deeply and keenly felt by general practitioners, nurses, midwives and the officers and members of the three urban district councils in the constituency, and not least, and in many respects the most important, by prospective patients. One of the grounds for complaint is that

almost total lack of consultation in arriving at the decision and the cursory and perfunctory way in which the matter has been dealt with thereafter.
It is proposed that the facilities of the general practitioner unit at this hospital be transferred to St. James's Hospital, Tredegar, when work on that unit has been completed. I understand that that is a hospital with a comparatively short lease of life. Many of us consider St. James's Hospital—and I cast no reflection upon its staff—to be wholly unsuitable for its purpose as a hospital, let alone as a maternity unit. St. James's is a converted workhouse situated in an extremely inaccessible position on the outskirts of Tredegar. The proposed catchment area is virtually the same as for Nantyglo Hospital. It stretches from Crumlin in the South to Brynmawr in the North. We are dealing with a population of about 38,000, and I do not include in that the populations of Ebbw Vale, Tredegar or Beaufort. The return bus fare from Abertillery to Tredegar is now 10s. I hope that I have fairly selected Abertillery, as it is in the centre of the catchment area.
To reach the hospital it is necessary to use three different buses, and at the end of that journey a pregnant woman, unless she has the good fortune to have travelled in one of the very few buses which travel to the hospital gates, a facility not afforded her on her return journey, must then walk 250 yards up a one-in-five hill to reach the hospital.
That this is seriously proposed in 1970 is a public scandal. It is quite impossible for pregnant mothers to cope with such a situation. Many will simply not be able to tolerate the journey and will consequently not receive the consultant attention they need during pregnancy. How it is suggested that patients with young children will be able to manage, defeats my imagination.
The position is much worse in winter. On no fewer than 16 days last winter there was total disruption of traffic due to snow and ice in the area, and this is by no means unusual.
In contradistinction, Nantyglo Hospital is in the centre of the area and within a stone's throw of the main road. The Report of the Cranbrook Committee in 1959, which went into close detail on


maternity care, made it quite clear that local maternity provision should be utilised to best advantage wherever possible. Such provisions are available locally in Nantyglo. What is completely beyond our comprehension is that whilst it is proposed to close Nantyglo it has been decided to keep open the Victoria Cottage Hospital at Abergavenny, one of the reasons being that the provision of beds at St. James's Hospital will be inadequate. This hospital, at the extreme end of the catchment area, 12 miles from Abertillery, has dealt in the past year with about a third of the number of births that Nantyglo has dealt with. It has no operating theatre, unlike Nantyglo, which has a purpose-built unit on which money has been spent in the past 12 months. Indeed, no operation of any kind has been carried out at Victoria Cottage Hospital for some five years. What was once the operating theatre has been converted to a nurses' sitting room.
It has been estimated from official sources that it will cost at least £20,000 to put Victoria Cottage Hospital into the same league as Nantyglo. The distance from Nantyglo to the consultant unit at St. James's is seven miles and from Abergavenny to St. James's 16½ miles. To retain this hospital is, therefore, completely at odds with the recommendations of the Peel Committee. I invite the Minister's attention to paragraph 204 of that Report which says:
Each general practitioner maternity unit should be linked with the nearest and most conveniently situated specialist unit.
Paragraph 120 refers to the evidence of this and recommends the need for detailed surveillance throughout the antenatal period. This will not be achieved, in fact, either at St. James's or at Victoria Cottage Hospital. But accepting that one G.P. unit has to close, in every respect all the evidence points overwhelmingly to the retention of Nantyglo as opposed to Victoria Cottage Hospital. The facts speak for themselves.
I now deal with some of the matters raised in the letter dated 4th December, 1970, from the Welsh Regional Hospital Board to the Clerk of the Nantyglo and Blaina Urban District Council. I will turn first to the arguments advanced on page 3 of the letter for the retention of Victoria Cottage Hospital. These are,

firstly, that that hospital has to serve a wide rural area; secondly, that should complications arise, a blood bank and pathology services are available at Nevill Hall Hospital. I am delighted to see the Minister here, and I know that he will deal with the replies to these arguments with great care.
Firstly, the population served by Victoria Cottage Hospital is merely 19,000. Many people in the area referred to can and do use the maternity facilities at Brecon and Hereford Hospitals, but this is not the only point. In paragraph 252, the Peel Report specifically envisaged this kind of problem in rural areas and recommended the provision of beds in hostels set up especially for this purpose until the time came when it was possible to maintain a fully viable maternity unit. This is the answer to the first argument put forward by the Welsh Regional Hospital Board in favour of retaining Victoria Cottage Hospital. It is simply not good enough for the Board to say that this is a hospital in a rural area serving a wide area and to leave it at that without going more into detail.
Secondly—and this is of cardinal importance—if complications should arise at Victoria Cottage Hospital, the patient would be sent to the consultant unit at St. James's and not to Nevill Hall. It is widely known in the medical profession that maternity cases are not sent to district general hospitals. Apart from the danger of sepsis, a mother in labour cannot have the services of a midwife at such a hospital, and, of course, there are no midwives at Nevill Hall Hospital.
I want now to deal with the question of blood banks and pathology services. Blood banks and pathology services are so rarely used as to be completely irrelevant to the argument. In Nantyglo, blood bank and pathology services have not been required for 12 years. The arguments in favour of the Victoria Cottage Hospital are at best flimsy and at the most misleading.
The letter from the regional board goes on to state that 22 out of 29 general practitioners have agreed to use the facilities at St. James's. I need say only that they took that view because it was felt that they had no choice in the matter except that of Hobson. But I


draw the Minister's attention in particular to the figures presented by the Board on page 2 of the letter.
I say at once that those figures dealing with admissions and emergency admissions to St. James's Hospital give a totally false and misleading impression. As they stand, they cast a disgraceful and unwarranted slur on the hospital, its staff and its midwives which I for one am not prepared to tolerate. I can only assume that the chairman's advisers have misled the chairman about these figures. I will give my reasons for saying so.
Because of the hour, I will deal only with the position in Nantyglo Hospital. The figure of 23 out of 77 emergency admissions to St. James's is the relevant figure and the 23 emergency admissions out of 77 are the figures for 1968 and 1969, up to October, 1969. What on earth is the point of choosing 77 as the relevant figure? The total number of maternity cases during the period mentioned by the chairman of the Board was 189, that is, 189 admissions to the Nantyglo Hospital, and it is right to say that 23 of these patients were referred to St. James's Hospital. That is 7 per cent. of total admissions. The only relevant figure is the total number of admissions and any other figure is frankly misleading and will give rise to a totally distorted picture.
Fifty-four of the 77 patterns were booked for St. James's as special cases in the ordinary course of events. This rate of emergencies is well below the national average, as is the rate of still births at the Nantyglo maternity unit. I assure the Minister that the same pattern emerges in 1970, again only 7 per cent. emergency admissions. When one looks at these figures anew, they give a very different picture from that painted by the Board.
We hope that this folly will not be allowed to prevail. It is high time that the wishes of ordinary people—the people most affected by these decisions—were taken into account by the planners. The Times on 20th July, 1970, commenting on the Peel Report, had this to say:
Efficient maternity care involves much more than the provision of expert facilities for the mother in labour. If there is to be adequate ante-natal and post-natal supervision, more attention has to be paid to community needs.

Only last week, and not for the first time, an ambulance on its way to St. James' had to stop at Nantyglo, because it could not reach St. James's Hospital in time. There was another such case only a few months ago. We have no doubt that these proposals, as they stand, will result in grevious reduction in the overall care of mothers and mothers-to-be. I believe that they should be put under the spotlight of a public inquiry at the very least, and I earnestly ask the Minister to scrutinise them again, both in the interests of prospective patients and in the interests of modern medicine.

2.17 a.m.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): I should like to thank the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Jeffrey Thomas) for raising this matter tonight, as it gives me an opportunity to discuss a matter which I know is the subject of great local anxiety—anxiety, indeed, which he himself has voiced in his very persuasive speech. With regard to the maternity unit at Blaina Hospital, I think I should make it clear to the House that the Welsh Hospital Board initiated consultations on the closure of these beds in February, 1969, and made final recommendations on their closure to the former Secretary of State in July of that year. The Board's proposals were approved by the then Secretary of State and a formal decision was sent out in August of that year.

Mr. Thomas: The situation then was different. In the first instance, there were only eight beds in the Nantyglo maternity unit, as opposed to fourteen now; and in the second place, it was not then envisaged by the then Secretary of State that there would have to be a second maternity unit opened in order to provide the extra beds required because St. James's could not provide an adequate number.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am coming to that in my speech. He has not left me as much as half the time. I am therefore going out of my way to be rather quick, and I hope he will forgive me if I deal with the point as I go along in my speech.
We are discussing a matter which has been fully examined, and it was because of the representations which have been made from the area that my right hon.


and learned Friend the Secretary of State asked me to look again at this matter. I have done this, and for reasons which I shall give I am afraid—and I must say this early in my speech—that I cannot see grounds for coming to a different decision.
The reorganisation of maternity services in the area is bound up with the reorganisation of hospital services consequent upon the opening of the first phase of Nevill Hall Hospital, Abergavenny. There has for some time been concern about the maternity services in this part of Monmouthshire. The perinatal mortality rate in North Monmouth is high, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and the Hospital Board therefore considered whether the opening of Nevill Hall might afford an opportunity of reorganising maternity services.
At this time, too, there was a debate which is still continuing about the best way of providing maternity care. As the House knows, a sub-committee of the Standing Maternity and Midwifery Committee, under Sir John Peel's chairmanship, produced a Report recommending that every mother should have her baby in hospital and that the facilities of the maternity service should be concentrated. The Report recommends that general practitioner maternity units should not be isolated, but should be near to consultant maternity units so that the full resources of such units will be available.
In line with this thinking, therefore, the Welsh Hospital Board's proposals were to concentrate maternity services at St. James's Hospital, Tredegar, where there was already a consultant maternity unit which would be expanded and which would have, in addition, general practitioner maternity beds associated with it. Extra G.P. maternity beds would be provided at Victoria Cottage Hospital, Abergavenny, to replace those at Blaina. The consequence of these proposals would be that the G.P. maternity beds at the Rookery, Ebbw Vale and Blaina Hospital would be closed.
This was the proposal upon which consultation took place and this was the recommendation made to the Secretary of State after this consultation. It was approved, as I have said.
In view of the criticisms that have been levelled at the Board, it is perhaps the

right time to make two important points. First the result of the proposals which were accepted by the former Secretary of State will be to increase the number of maternity beds in the area. In 1969 there were some 69 consultant and G.P. maternity beds there. On the completion of the work at St. James's, Tredegar, there will be 78. Second, I hope I have made it clear from what I said earlier that the concentration of facilities is in line with modern thinking and the Board hopes the result will be a better level of service to the patients. This must always be our prime objective.
The Hospital Board has been criticised on the grounds that its present plans cannot in effect be reconciled with the proposals upon which it went out to consultation. The hon. Gentleman has touched on this. It is urged that the current plans differ so markedly from its original proposals that there should be fresh consultation.
Let us consider this aspect. First it has been pointed out quite correctly that the Board's original plans envisaged the closure of maternity beds at Blaina and their transfer to Victoria Cottage Hospital. However, the Board is now saying that the great majority of Blaina patients will go to St. James's, Tredegar.
The reason for this is that the Board has offered G.P.s using the beds at Blaina the alternative of facilities at St. James's, Tredegar, as well as Victoria Cottage as originally proposed. In fact, I understand that the great majority of G.P.s prefer St. James's, Tredegar. I see no reason to reopen consultations on these grounds. The original option of Victoria Cottage is still open to G.P.s who want it, but in addition they were offered beds at Tredegar. This it seems to me is an improvement on the Hospital Board's original proposals and is something for which it should receive credit
Second, it has been pointed out that the Hospital Board proposed to increase the number of beds at Victoria Cottage Hospital to 19 but now it proposes to keep the number at 14.
The reason for this is that so few G.P.s wished to make use of facilities at Victoria Cottage that the Board considered it would be unjustified in increasing the number of beds allocated to G.P. maternity services there.
I appreciate that some anxiety has been expressed about the number of G.P. maternity beds in the area now, but I would point out that there will be an overall increase in the number of maternity beds from 69 to 78 when the Tredegar unit opens in the New Year.
I understand, too, from the Hospital Board that should the demand for G.P. maternity beds be greater than expected there will be considerable flexibility in the use of the consultant beds at Tredegar so that, if available, G.P.s can make use of them.
I would now like to say a few words about the hospitals involved in the reorganisation as there seems to be some misunderstanding about them. First, I have been asked why, if Blaina is to close, the number of G.P. maternity beds there have been increased from eight to 13. It is argued that in view of the money spent on this and the increase in bed numbers, Blaina is now a viable unit.
I do not think this is so. The bed numbers were increased as a temporary measure to provide facilities for G.P.s who formerly used beds at the Rookery, Ebbw Vale.
This does not alter the fact that Blaina is a small unit isolated from a consultant unit. In addition, I understand from the Board that very little money has been spent on providing the increased accommodation—only some £180 for the conversion of a room into a stand-by second delivery room.
Second, I have been asked what Victoria Cottage has that Blaina does not have. It has been pointed out, quite rightly, that there is no consultant maternity unit at Abergavenny. The answer is that Victoria Cottage is very close to Nevill Hall and, although there are no maternity facilities there, Victoria Cottage will have the benefit—and the hon. Gentleman referred to the letter from the Welsh Hospital Board chairman—of the blood bank and specialised diagnostic services which are available at Nevill Hall.
I would agree that this is not ideal but it seems to me better than the position at Blaina. The ultimate reorganisation of maternity services will have to await the next phase of Nevill Hall which will include, maternity beds. I should

also perhaps add that I am assured by the Board that no money has been spent at Victoria Cottage. I say this because the hon. Gentleman has alleged that £20,000 has been spent at Victoria Cottage.
My information is that no money has been spent and I hope that it is correct.
Third, I can, perhaps, reassure local opinion about the staff situation in the area. There are tour midwives at Blaina, and I understand that there has been some local anxiety about the question of transfer to Tredegar. I am, however, told by the Hospital Board that three of the four have now agreed to transfer.
There is one point the validity of which I fully accept. This is that the removal of facilities to Tredegar and Victoria Cottage will mean that expectant mothers will have a longer journey to make. The hon. Gentleman made this point. St. James' Tredegar is seven miles from Blaina and Victoria Cottage is 11 miles. I appreciate that there will be some inconvenience and expense involved for those in Blaina. However, I think that the following points are relevant.
First, ante-natal care would be provided locally, and it would usually be necessary for an expectant mother to be seen only twice at consultant clinics at St. James's Tredegar. I think it important to put the matter into perspective.
Second, I understand that the Hospital Management Committee is at present in negotiation with the local bus company to improve bus services. I am told that five services will now stop at the St. James's Hospital gates and that further talks are being held about return services. I think that this demonstrates an anxiety on the part of the hospital authorities to do everything possible in this connection, and I pay tribute to their efforts.
Third, I repeat that our prime objective must be, and is, to consider the needs of the patient and the provision of the best service. The Hospital Board believes that the proposed reorganisation will bring about a better service and this must take precedence over everything else in the interests of mother and child.
To sum up, I have looked carefully at all the arguments advanced both in the speech of the hon. Gentleman, who put his case persuasively and with great


feeling—and rightly so—and in the other representations which the Secretary of State and I have received from the locality. I have looked at the matter most carefully, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, in spite of his pleas and his arguments, for the reasons which I have put to the House tonight I can find

nothing which leads me to think that there is need to review the decision made by the former Secretary of State.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Two o'clock.